California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

450A. Good Samaritan—Nonemergency

Download PDF
450A.Good Samaritan—Nonemergency
[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she] is not responsible for [name of
plaintiff]’s harm because [he/she] was voluntarily trying to protect [name
of plaintiff] from harm in a nonemergency situation. If you decide that
[name of defendant] was negligent, [he/she] is not responsible unless
[name of plaintiff] proves both of the following:
1. [(a) That [name of defendant]’s failure to use reasonable care
added to the risk of harm;]
1. [or]
1. [(b) That [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [name of plaintiff]
to reasonably rely on [his/her] protection;]
2. That the [additional risk/ [or] reliance] was a substantial factor
in causing harm to [name of plaintiff].
Derived from former CACI No. 450 December 2010
Directions for Use
Use this instruction for situations other than at the scene of an emergency. Different
standards apply in an emergency situation. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.102;
CACI No. 450B, Good Samaritan—Scene of Emergency.) Give both instructions if
the jury will be asked to decide whether an emergency existed as the preliminary
issue. Because under Health and Safety Code section 1799.102 a defendant receives
greater protection in an emergency situation, the advisory committee believes that
the defendant bears the burden of proving an emergency. (See Evid. Code, § 500
[party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of
which is essential to the claim for relief or defense asserted].)
Select either or both options for element 1 depending on the facts.
Sources and Authority
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Medical Licensees. Business and Professions
Code sections 2395–2398.
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Nurses. Business and Professions Code sections
2727.5, 2861.5.
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Dentists. Business and Professions Code section
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Rescue Teams. Health and Safety Code section
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Persons Rendering Emergency Medical Services
Health and Safety Code section 1799.102.
• Good Samaritan Immunity for Paramedics. Health and Safety Code section
• Good Samaritan Immunity for First-Aid Volunteers. Government Code section
• “Under well-established common law principles, a person has no duty to come
to the aid of another. If, however, a person elects to come to someone’s aid, he
or she has a duty to exercise due care. Thus, a ‘good Samaritan’ who attempts
to help someone might be liable if he or she does not exercise due care and
ends up causing harm.” (Van Horn v. Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, 324 [86
Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 197 P.3d 164], internal citations omitted.)
• “A person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort merely for failure to
take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some
relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act. Also pertinent to
our discussion is the role of the volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so,
undertakes to come to the aid of another—the ‘good Samaritan.’ . . . He is
under a duty to exercise due care in performance and is liable if (a) his failure
to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered
because of the other’s reliance upon the undertaking.” (Williams v. State of
California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23 [192 Cal.Rptr. 233, 664 P.2d 137], internal
citations omitted.)
• “A police officer, paramedic or other public safety worker is as much entitled to
the benefit of this general rule as anyone else.” (Camp v. State of California
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 967, 975 [109 Cal.Rptr.3d 676].)
• “Under the good Samaritan doctrine, CHP may have a duty to members of the
public to exercise due care when CHP voluntarily assumes a protective duty
toward a certain member of the public and undertakes action on behalf of that
member thereby inducing reliance, when an express promise to warn of a
danger has induced reliance, or when the actions of CHP place a person in peril
or increase the risk of harm. In other words, to create a special relationship and
a duty of care, there must be evidence that CHP ‘ “made misrepresentations that
induced a citizen’s detrimental reliance [citation], placed a citizen in harm’s
way [citations], or lulled a citizen into a false sense of security and then
withdrew essential safety precautions.” ’ Nonfeasance that leaves the citizen in
exactly the same position that he or she already occupied cannot support a
finding of duty of care. Affirmative conduct or misfeasance on the part of CHP
that induces reliance or changes the risk of harm is required.” (Greyhound
Lines, Inc. v. Department of the California Highway Patrol (2013) 213
Cal.App.4th 1129, 1136 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 492], internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1996) Pleadings, § 553
6Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1060–1065
Flahavan et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury (The Rutter Group)
¶¶ 2:583.10–2:583.11, 2:876
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 1, Negligence: Duty and Breach, § 1.11
(Matthew Bender)
4 California Trial Guide, Unit 90, Closing Argument, § 90.90 (Matthew Bender)
33 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 380, Negligence, § 380.32[5][c]
(Matthew Bender)
16 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 165, Negligence, § 165.150 (Matthew