Business Law Analysis - Good Samaritan Law in practice

Value Goal:

To allow for emergency assistance while promoting customer and employee safety.

The Good Samaritan Law serves at its most basic level to compel citizens to assist their communities when emergencies arise. The various iterations of this set of laws provide

for the limited legal protection of citizens helping others in their time of need and are

aimed at enhancing public safety and community health. Despite the positive intent of

measures aimed at incentivizing action when time is of the essence, history is littered

with examples of times where employment-at-will policies have clashed with the act’s

very essence.

Employment-at-will refers to a concept in which employers and their employees agree

to an “indefinite employment term” which “may be terminated at any time by the

employer or employee”, provided that the reasoning is not illegal. (Cornell Law School,

2019) The concept offers reduced stability in exchange for enhanced freedoms afforded

to both parties. The conflict between employment-at-will and good Samaritan laws is

intertwined in the premise that lifesaving activities are in not commonly seen as

protected categories within employment-at-will policies in contrast to reasons relating to

concepts such as race or religion, for example. Further, while the “Good Samaritans”

themselves are protected in their decisions to act, the companies employing these

Samaritans often are not afforded the same protections. With this, companies are

unfortunately incentivized to limit their liability despite the heroic nature of their

employees. In practice this means that employees are frequently disciplined or even

fired as a direct result of their acts of bravery.

Strategy

Modify Internal Policies and Procedures

One of the most influential first steps for firms looking to encourage employees to act in

the event of an emergency is by modifying internal policies to better provide for the

employees intervening in said situations. By carefully creating a legally sound

framework to properly support employees, firms can better protect themselves while

leveraging the positive benefits of providing enhanced community health. The

importance of this step in the process is grounded in the inherent conflict whereby the

law exists to compel citizens to act however employment policies may cause hesitation

out of fear for retaliation or termination.

The firm looking to integrate support for good-Samaritan behaviors should enact clear

policy guidelines authorizing their employees to act in the event of emergencies. By

expressly clarifying that the company supports and encourages this type of behavior,

employees will not feel at odds with their personal ethics when exclusively deciding

whether to intervene or protect their employment. These types of policy reform take

many different forms. In their most direct form, a company may choose to include

specific language in hiring documents or an employee handbook. Companies who

choose to celebrate, reward, and recognize employees for their heroic actions can

further reinforce these values and thus strengthen their stated position to both

employees and the public. The Walt Disney Company, for example, allows employees

to nominate coworkers involved in lifesaving activities for an accolade known as the

“Disney Heroes Award”. The Walt Disney Company website proudly states: “Emergency

preparedness and safety are highly valued here at Disney, so much so that a special

award — the Disney Heroes Award — was introduced to recognize employees who

save a life or prevent serious injuries.” (Leach, 2013)

Resources and Training

Hand in hand with a company revamping their internal policies is providing the

appropriate means for employees to intervene along with the know-how to do so safely

and effectively. Such measures taken by a firm are recommended to maximize the

amount of goods produced by these actions as well as safeguard the company from

undue liability.

Increasingly popular, companies have begun training their employees on the specific

implementation, procedures, and legal considerations involved in intervening in certain

emergencies. While impossible to account for any instance of emergency, companies

can hold training sessions, drills, and even audit for emergency compliance to better

train their workforce to respond appropriately to common threats. For example, dating

back to even 2002, Disney Amusement Parks requires certain members of their team to

be CPR, AED, or first aid certified and encourages as many employees as possible to

be properly trained. The park, like many organizations, audits for the completion of

regular emergency drills which allow employees to rehearse their roles before

emergencies occur. (Disney Land, 2003)

Just as important in preparing a company’s workforce to act appropriately in the face of

an emergency is providing the proper resources to allow employees to leverage their

training. Supplying the correct equipment to employees allows them to act with the

utmost efficiency and confidence, maximizing potential positive impact and minimizing

legal liability. The most commonl examples include medical devices or resources aimed

at saving lives such as the Automated Electric Defibrillator (AED). Their use case

ranges greatly from industries such as consumer travel to large sporting arenas or

gyms. In fact, some states or industries even require their use, underscoring the

immense value in properly preparing employees to intervene. (AED.com, 2024) Beyond

medical devices, some organizations have implemented advanced communication or

emergency management technology. For instance, banks commonly feature dedicated

lines to alert law enforcement to trouble at the push of the button. Likewise, fuel stations

are equipped with specialized PPE and equipment to prevent disaster in the case of a

fuel spill.

Ensure the Right People in the Right Place

Finally, in an effort to best align Good Samaritan Laws to reduce competition with

employment-at-will policies companies should ensure that they provision for and

implement the appropriate human capital.

To bolster the capabilities of the workforce and best assist them in acting on behalf of

the company and in favor of public health, firms should create and document clear and

concise communication channels to be utilized in the case of an emergency. While

empowering front-line workers to act is a great premise, management, specialized

employees, or even emergency services must remain informed and properly involved.

By clearly establishing communication channels and chain-of-command, employees can

confidently and quickly inform and consult with the proper entities to mitigate further

issues and liability. For instance, in the event of a hurricane or tornado, Walmart Stores

offers its management team a “Weather Emergency Hotline”. The hotline is manned by

a department at the Arkansas Headquarters and will maintain contact with regional

leadership, provide weather updates and guidance, and if necessary, can coordinate

with emergency services.

Increasingly, companies are finding value in preparing for certain emergency situations

by allocating specialized activities to individual departments or even outsourcing to

external entities. In doing so, companies are aiming to put trained professionals in place

to deal with emergencies, easing the burden on the general employee base. For

instance, sporting events or even some large department store events typically

outsource security duties to police departments. Likewise, sporting arena’s often employ

their own medical staff, providing for the accessibility of trained individuals to deal with

emergencies.

Law

The Florida Good Samaritan Act, much like legislation from other states across the

country, although specifically targeted at healthcare workers provides for the immunity

of liability for those assisting in emergency situations. The statute designates specific

conditions that must be met in order for the provisions to apply and explains the

immunities in greater detail.

The specific language of the Good Samaritan Act certainly has a bearing on the

strategies implemented by a firm looking to support its measures. First, it is important to

recognize the limitations of the act and appropriately train employees in their

implications. For example, the law provides protections only to the extent that a

“…person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the

same or similar circumstances”. ( Good Samaritan Act; Immunity from Civil Liability, n.d)

For businesses, this means that their employees could potentially be legally scrutinized

to determine if their actions were consistent with a “reasonably prudent person”.

Employees should be appropriately made aware of the implications of this scrutiny.

Especially for companies actively promoting intervention, great value can be created by

actively involving management or professional help in the case of emergencies.

Ensuring key entities are informed and able to engage with emergencies may shield

employees from the risk of exceeding their scope.

Another important consideration in the implementation of the aforementioned strategies

is that the “Good Samaritan Act” specifics vary from state-to-state. While all 50 states

have enacted forms of the Act, the language and duties may vary slightly in different

parts of the country. For the host of businesses that operate in a national capacity,

understanding and training employees for the specific implications of the applicable

states protections is paramount. For example, in some states the Good Samaritan Law

extends beyond simply offering protections from liability and in fact legally requires

bystanders to provide emergency assistance. The varying nature of the law from stateto-

state means that businesses are best served by fully understanding their area’s

specific laws and communicating these differences to their employees. (Schulman,

2023)

Finally, as previously mentioned, one of the chief legal concerns at odds with the

provision of the Good Samaritan Act is the concept of liability. The act specifically

protects individuals acting in “good faith” from damages resulting from their intervention

in an emergency. Because the act does not specifically protect a business from any

such form of liability, firms must consciously attempt to limit their own liability in their

actions supporting the concepts of the act. Depending on the strategies enacted,

businesses may be compelled to action hoping to reduce their own liability in the event

of an employee rendering emergency aid. For example, businesses which house AED

equipment often regularly retrain employees on how to properly use the device in

emergency situations. Doing so not only bolsters the effectiveness of their employees’

response but also demonstrates that the business is conducting due diligence in

preparing its workforce to safely utilize the equipment. Actions such as these allow

businesses to effectively limit their liability in the event of damages caused by an

employee.

The ability of a business to fire their employees when acting in accordance with the

Good Samaritan Act, in my opinion, directly violates the employment-at-will exception

relating to public policy. The underlying purpose of this exception is to prevent

employees from being fired for acting in the public’s best interest, even if this interest

conflicts with the company in question. This concept has been upheld in many state

findings. For example, the California Appellate Court found that “while imprecise, [the

public policy exception] covered acts that had ‘a tendency to be injurious to the public or

against the public good’” (Muhl, 2001) Just as it has been found many times that

employees cannot be fired for reporting criminal behavior of a superior or failing to act

unlawfully at the request of an employer, it is my assertion that employees should

likewise be employment protected in their attempts to intervene in an emergency. By

failing to classify these types of actions as exempt under the public policy exception,

businesses are allowed to undermine the purpose of such an exception and may

potentially negatively impact greater public good.

Ethics

Ethical considerations involving the alignment of Good Samaritan laws and

employment-at-will policies affect many different stakeholders. The various concerns for

individual stakeholders may sometimes seem at odds with one another which is why it

is critical for companies to foster a balanced strategy which promotes action in

emergencies by protecting employees while also limiting the organization-wide liability

of the business.

Employees and Employers

The ethical tussle between employees and their employers is the most readily

recognizable relationship to be considered, although potentially one of the most

complex. For employees, the chief ethical conflict is that between public safety and job

security. Failure of a business to appropriately recognize Good Samaritan laws may

cause employees to hesitate to act, potentially causing greater harm to public health.

On the reverse side, employers are also faced with their own legitimate ethical struggle.

Employers have the additional unique responsibility of ensuring the continued viability of

the company. Historically, it has been proven that businesses have a responsibility to

act in the best interests of their shareholders and are charged with protecting their

profits accordingly. While businesses certainly have a duty in contributing to the greater

public good, safety included, their efforts must be carefully evaluated and exhibit proper

due diligence to sufficiently protect the company from a legal standpoint.

Customers and the Community

A firm’s customers as well as the community which supports the businesses existence

also represent key stakeholders with ethical concerns to be considered. Consumers

should be ethically permitted to enjoy a safe shopping experience and should be able to

expect timely and appropriate assistance in the event of an emergency. Likewise, the

community at large should be able to ethically rely on companies to act in the best

interests of the overall health and safety of the community. It can be easily assessed as

unethical that a company’s actions may cause employees to act contradictory to this

duty, especially in spite of the employees own ethical directive.

Shareholders, Policy Makers and Regulatory Bodies

Shareholders, much like the employers who represent them, may be incentivized to

disregard ethical duties in favor of profitability. Shareholders invest in companies for the

express purpose of potentially realizing some sort of gain in value in exchange for their

consideration. A utilitarian analysis of the ethical consideration yields a far more

complex root issue. While many would agree that the need for public safety outweighs

the need for individual, investors may argue that their profits be protected from undue

liability. This consideration underscores the importance of a business’s efforts in limiting

its liability appropriately to best address all stakeholder concerns.

Policy makers and regulatory bodies are also ancillary stakeholders which warrant

unique ethical consideration. These entities, charged with acting on behalf of society

and in service of the greatest good, represent both sides of the dilemma. Because of

their position of agency, entities such as these in many ways are supposed to embody

the ethical concerns of their constituents. Legal bodies and those who have a hand in

shaping policy owe an ethical duty to equally and fairly support both employees and

employers while also positively affecting public health policy. Although not directly

involved, their actions play a key role in successfully integrating employment at-willpolicy

to better to allow for Good Samaritan action and their decisions may directly

impact a business’s strategies.

Conclusion:

The conflict between employment-at-will policies and legislation such as the Good

Samaritan Act is most effectively addressed through a blended strategy which carefully

integrates strategic modifications, legal compliance, and ethical considerations.

The most logical first step for a firm is clearly notating the organization’s position and

expectations regarding intervening in emergencies. By doing so, businesses remove

ambiguity in employees’ decisions to intervene – a critical consideration when action

may avert disaster. However, simply stating the company’s position does not

adequately shield the company from liability nor provide for the best outcome in the

event of emergency situations. Firms should be prepared to provide adequate training

and resources for their employees, best preparing them to deal with crisis and act in

accordance with company interests.

From a legal perspective, such measures taken by a company may not only be

considered good stewardship but also serve a practical purpose. Companies

undertaking such measures should be careful to adequately familiarize themselves with

potential legal challenges. Companies encouraging heroic action of their employees

should take appropriate caution to limit their liability and dispel any suspicion of

negligence. Failing to appropriately service resources or train employees may expose a

firm to undue liability. Likewise, the specific coverage of the law along with the specific

statewide implications must be adequately impressed to employees.

Ethically, the diverse interests of multiple stakeholders must be balanced in providing an

effective solution to this divergence. Employees should be able to intervene in

emergencies without compromising their job security. Meanwhile, customers and the

community are owed a sense of diligence and security. While companies have an

ethical responsibility to protect their employees and customers, they must also ensure

the viability of the business for its shareholders. This complex blend of ethical

considerations outlines the importance of adopting a strategy that adequately addresses

all stakeholder interests. This ensures that businesses can support their employees as

Good Samaritans, thereby promoting public safety while providing for their own stability.

Sources

AED.com (2024) Florida AED Statutes and Regulations. Www.aed.com.

https://www.aed.com/florida-aed-statutes-regulations

Cornell Law School. (2019). Employment-at-will Doctrine. LII / Legal Information

Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment-at-will_doctrine

Disney Land Parks and Resorts (2003) 2002 REPORT ON Safety.

(http://adisneyland.disney.go.com/media/dlr/content/eng/safety/Safety_Report.pd

f

Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability. -, Title XLV: Torts, Chapter 768.13

Negligence. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=

0700-0799/0768/Sections/0768.13.htmlhttps://www.aarp.org/experiencecounts/

good-samaritan-laws-states.html

Leach, E. (2013, March 19). The Disney Heroes Award: Honoring Employees Who

Save Lives. The Walt Disney Company. https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/thedisney-

heroes-award-honoring-employees-who-save-lives/)

Muhl, C. (2001). Monthly Labor Review Employment at Will.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf

Schulman, C. (2023, October 19). Don’t Be Afraid to Be a Good Guy in These States.

AARP; AARP. https://www.aarp.org/experience-counts/good-samaritan-lawsstates.

html