LIABILITY OF CERTAIN PERSONS FOR EMERGENCY CARE
Act 17 of 1963
691.1502 Emergency care; exemption from civil liability; exception; staffing hospital emergency facilities.
Sec. 2.
(1) If the individual's actual hospital duty does not require a response to the emergency situation, a physician, physician's assistant, dentist, podiatrist, intern, resident, registered professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, physical therapist, clinical laboratory technologist, inhalation therapist, certified registered nurse anesthetist, x-ray technician, or licensed EMS provider who in good faith responds to a life threatening emergency or responds to a request for emergency assistance in a life threatening emergency in a hospital or other licensed medical care facility is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in the rendering of emergency care, except an act or omission amounting to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
(2) The exemption from liability under subsection (1) does not apply to a physician if a physician-patient relationship, to a physician's assistant if a physician's assistant-patient relationship, or to a licensed nurse if a nurse-patient relationship existed before the emergency.
(3) The exemption from liability under subsection (1) does not apply to a physician's assistant unless the response by the physician's assistant is within the scope of the license held by the physician's assistant or within the expertise or training of the physician's assistant.
(4) This act does not diminish a hospital's responsibility to reasonably and adequately staff hospital emergency facilities if the hospital maintains or holds out to the general public that it maintains emergency room facilities.
History: Add. 1975, Act 123, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1975 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 543, Imd. Eff. July 26, 2002 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 209, Eff. Feb. 28, 2016
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 543 of 2002 provides:
“Enacting section 1. This amendatory act applies to a cause of action arising on or after the effective date of this amendatory act.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case:
Pemberton v. Dharmani, 525 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
Pemberton v. Dharmani, 525 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Zarewych with regard to plaintiffs’ allegations of ordinary negligence, but allowing the case to proceed to trial with regard to the issue of his gross negligence.”
Hamburger v. Henry Ford Hosp., 284 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Defendant based its request on the "good Samaritan” statute, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12). The trial judge denied the request.”
Jennings v. Southwood, 521 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 1994).
“” It is in that concept — the notion that in the circumstances of a given case the injury is probable, or to be expected, or likely — that is found the requisite indifference to harm tantamount to a willingness that it occur, if not a specific intent that it does, which…”
Johnson v. Matviuw, 531 N.E.2d 970 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 2× “" ( Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1502 (1979).) Given the clear language of the Illinois statute, this court must apply it as written.”
Higgins v. Detroit Osteopathic Hosp. Corp., 398 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 3× “The second issue deals with the "Good Samaritan’’ act, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that defendant Poston was within the protection of this act.”
Gordin v. William Beaumont Hosp., 447 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Howard on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the doctor was immune from liability under the "Good Samaritan” statute, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12). Plaintiff also appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his motion to amend the *490 complaint to…”
Matts v. Homsi, 308 N.W.2d 284 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “The pertinent language of the statute is as follows: "(1) In instances where the actual hospital duty of that person did not require a response to that emergency situation, a physician * * * who in good faith responds to a life threatening emergency or responds to a request for…”
Thornhill v. City of Detroit, 369 N.W.2d 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff draws a comparison to the "good samaritan" statute, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12), which was considered in Hamburger, supra, and held not to grant derivative immunity to the hospital.”
Pemberton v. Dharmani, 469 N.W.2d 74 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “116(0(10), arguing that under the "Good Samaritan” statute, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12), he was immune from civil liability for ordinary negligence.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1502(1) — 4 cases
Pemberton v. Dharmani, 525 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
“Zarewych with regard to plaintiffs’ allegations of ordinary negligence, but allowing the case to proceed to trial with regard to the issue of his gross negligence.”
Gordin v. William Beaumont Hosp., 447 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“Howard on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the doctor was immune from liability under the "Good Samaritan” statute, MCL 691.1502; MSA 14.563(12). Plaintiff also appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his motion to amend the *490 complaint to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1502(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.