For those of you who listened to the Queens speech you may have heard her mention, amongst other things, The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill. Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, has said that the legislation will be passed in 2015. The idea behind it is to protect small business owners and volunteers from negligence claims.
The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (or SARAH as it’s apparently referred to) will, he said, set out simple protections for people who act "in the interests of society, responsibly or heroically".
"All too often people who are doing the right thing in our society feel constrained by the fear that they are the ones who will end up facing a lawsuit for negligence."
Global Good Samaritans
The idea is not a new one. “Good Samaritan Laws” exist in many various formats around the Globe. They mainly fall into two camps. One, as in France, imposes an obligation on citizens to help others or face the risk of prosecution if they don’t. This is sometimes referred to as “a duty to rescue”.
The second type of Good Samaritan law is where people are protected from legal consequences if they intervene with the intention of helping someone. SARAH covers this second type. Similar legislation operates in Australia where it has reduced the potential for medical negligence claims against doctors, firefighters and police, as well as members of the public.
Australia are not the only country who protect emergency workers and the public from legal action when they have tried to help someone. In Canada any rescuer who has voluntarily helped someone in trouble is legally protected from being sued for ‘wrongdoing’.
In America, Good Samaritan laws vary from state to state. They are there to protect those who come to the aid of others for no reason apart from kindness. In other words, if you’re getting paid to rescue then you aren't a Good Samaritan. Paid rescuers are expected to do their jobs correctly and can be held accountable for mistakes. In some states, Good Samaritan laws only cover medically trained rescuers, while other states extend protection to the general public.
In California in 2008 there was a well-publicised ‘Good Samaritan’ case when a women pulled her friend from a car following an accident. Despite acting in the best interests of the victim and not expecting or requesting a reward she was sued.
The women were travelling back in the early hours after a night of drinking and dancing. Alexandra Van Horn crashed her car at 45mph into a lamppost and Lisa Torti, fearful that the car was going to explode, pulled her out of the wreck. Ms Horn claimed she was pulled out “like a rag doll” contributing to her injuries. The case led to a complete rewrite of California's Good Samaritan law.
David Cameron has been talking about a Good Samaritan Law for the UK since 2009. He wants emergency workers and the public to be protected from legal consequences if they intervene in good faith to help someone in difficulty.
There have been a number of tragic cases in the UK where people have stood aside out of fear of contravening UK and EU rules.
In 2007 10 year old Jordon Lyon drowned in a pond in Wigan after rescuing his younger sister. Community support officers were present but told not to intervene as they had not had their water rescue health and safety training.
Daily Mail
What’s Proposed inthe Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill?
SARAH aims to provide legal protection for people who intervene in disputes, the so called have-a-go heroes or Good Samaritans, forcing courts to take it into account if they were acting for the public benefit.
Grayling proposes that the law be changed so that judges will have to give weight to three additional factors when deciding negligence cases.
They are:
- The alleged negligence/breach of duty occurred when the defendant was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members (clause 2)
- In carrying out the activity in the course of which the negligence/breach of statutory duty occurred, the defendant had demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others (clause 3)
The Bill does not dictate what conclusion the court should reach, nor does it stop a person from being found negligent if the circumstances warrant it. Its aim is to send a strong message to the courts to ensure the wider context of the situation is taken into account before reaching a conclusion on liability.
http://info.mayiclaim.co.uk/personal_injury_compensation_claim_news/bid/348496/Good-Samaritans-Laws-for-Have-a-Go-Heroes-to-Change-in-2015
 delicious 