Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 – Liability for Emergency Care (Good Samaritan Law)

Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 Summary

This Texas law, often referred to as the “Good Samaritan Law,” provides legal protection to individuals who offer emergency assistance. Generally, anyone who administers emergency care in good faith is shielded from civil liability for their actions, unless their conduct is proven to be “wilfully or wantonly negligent.” This protection extends to individuals using automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and volunteer first responders. However, the statute outlines several crucial exceptions where this immunity does not apply, such as when the care is provided for payment or if the person rendering aid was the cause of the emergency in the first place.

Purpose of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151

The legislative intent behind this statute is to encourage individuals to come to the aid of others in emergency situations without the fear of legal repercussions. By granting immunity from civil damages, Texas aims to reduce the hesitation people might feel when witnessing an accident or medical crisis. The law acknowledges that prompt assistance can be life-saving and seeks to promote civic responsibility and altruism. It protects those acting in good faith, ensuring that their genuine attempts to help are not met with lawsuits for ordinary negligence, thereby fostering a community where individuals are more willing to intervene when help is needed most.

Real-World Example of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151

Imagine a scenario where a person, let’s call her Sarah, is driving down a busy highway when she witnesses a severe multi-car accident. She immediately pulls over and rushes to the scene, finding an injured driver, Mark, bleeding heavily from a leg wound. Sarah, who has basic first aid training but is not a medical professional, quickly applies a tourniquet using her belt to stop the bleeding, an act she performs in good faith to save Mark’s life. While her quick action saves Mark from bleeding out, the tourniquet is applied very tightly, and he later experiences some nerve damage in his leg that might have been avoided if a trained EMT had applied it differently.

Mark recovers and considers suing Sarah for negligence, arguing that the nerve damage was a direct result of her actions. However, Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 would likely protect Sarah. She acted in good faith, without expectation of payment, and was not the cause of the accident. Unless Mark could prove that Sarah’s application of the tourniquet was “wilfully or wantonly negligent” (meaning she intentionally caused harm or acted with extreme disregard for his safety, which is a very high bar), she would be immune from civil damages under Texas’s Good Samaritan Law. This illustrates how the statute encourages bystander intervention by protecting those who genuinely attempt to help.

Related Statutes

Several other Texas statutes are directly related to or commonly referenced alongside Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 due to its internal cross-references and broader context of emergency response and liability:

• Government Code § 421.095 (Definition of “First Responder”): This section is explicitly referenced in § 74.151(a)(2). It defines “first responder” for the purpose of extending Good Samaritan protections to volunteers in this category. A “first responder” typically refers to an individual who is paid or volunteers to respond to calls for emergency medical or law enforcement assistance.
• Education Code Subchapter G, Chapter 38 (Student Health and Safety Programs): Referenced in § 74.151(e), this subchapter outlines various health and safety programs, practices, and procedures that school districts must or may develop, often including emergency care protocols. The Good Samaritan law provides an exception for school district personnel who administer care under such programs, shielding them from liability unless their actions constitute willful or intentional misconduct, even if their prior negligence contributed to the emergency.
• Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 74 (Medical Liability): This entire chapter deals with medical liability and often defines the standards of care and limitations on damages for healthcare providers. While § 74.151 specifically addresses Good Samaritans, the broader chapter provides the framework for other medical negligence claims, distinguishing between the higher standard for Good Samaritans (“wilfully or wantonly negligent”) and the standard for professional medical care.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151

Texas courts have interpreted the scope and limitations of Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151. One notable case is University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Abughazaleh, 457 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2015). In this case, the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the Good Samaritan statute applied to a licensed physician providing emergency care in a hospital setting. The Court ultimately held that the statute’s protection is generally aimed at persons who render care in an emergency *outside* of a professional medical context, distinguishing it from the duties of a medical professional providing care within the scope of their employment or practice, particularly in a hospital. This decision clarified that the statute is primarily intended to protect laypersons or volunteer responders in spontaneous emergencies, not to alter the standard of care for medical professionals already obligated to provide care.

Why Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

For individuals involved in personal injury litigation in Texas, Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.151 carries significant weight for both plaintiffs and defendants.

For Plaintiffs: If an injured party seeks to sue someone who provided emergency care, this statute creates a substantial hurdle. A plaintiff must prove that the Good Samaritan’s actions were not merely negligent, but “wilfully or wantonly negligent.” This higher standard of proof means demonstrating extreme carelessness or an intentional disregard for safety, which is much more challenging than proving ordinary negligence. This often discourages lawsuits against those who genuinely attempt to help, focusing litigation on incidents where harm was caused by more egregious conduct.

For Defendants: For an individual who provided emergency care and is subsequently sued, § 74.151 provides a powerful affirmative defense. A defendant can assert that they acted in good faith, without expectation of remuneration, and were not the cause of the emergency, thereby invoking the protections of the Good Samaritan Law. This can lead to the swift dismissal of claims that do not meet the “wilfully or wantonly negligent” threshold, saving the defendant from costly litigation.

For Legal Professionals: Attorneys representing either side must thoroughly analyze the facts of an emergency care scenario against the specific provisions and exceptions of the statute. Key considerations include:

• Good Faith: Was the care administered with genuine intent to help?
• Remuneration: Was there any expectation of payment for the care?
• Cause of Emergency: Did the person administering care contribute to the initial emergency?
• Type of Negligence: Can “wilful or wanton negligence” be proven, or is it merely ordinary negligence?
• Specific Exceptions: Does the care fall under specific exceptions like those for school employees?

Understanding this statute is critical for evaluating the viability of a personal injury claim involving emergency assistance and for developing effective litigation strategies. It underscores Texas’s policy of encouraging spontaneous aid while setting clear boundaries for liability.