Good Samaritan Law

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Law whether he can give an update on the assessment of a need for a Good Samaritan law to be implemented in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, the hon Member had previously raised similar questions before this House in 2008 and 2012. Then, the Government explained why there was no need to introduce a Good Samaritan law in the immediate future in Singapore. Our assessment today remains that such a law is unnecessary at the present time. The reasons previously given continue to apply.

Our laws do not give rise to any major liability concerns for Good Samaritans. In respect of civil liability, our laws only require a person who offers assistance to comply with the standard of care that can be reasonably expected of a person of his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, a person is generally liable only if there is an intent to cause harm or injury. Clearly, a Good Samaritan acting in good faith will not fall into this category.

Singaporeans are not fearful of helping those in need, as can be seen by examples of our citizens stepping forward in emergency situations. For instance, in October last year, five members of public helped to extricate a taxi driver and his passengers when the taxi was crushed by a tipper truck in a road accident. There have been no reported cases where persons had refused to come forward out of fear of incurring legal liability. However, should this context change, we will re-examine this issue.

Page: 19

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. In previous responses, it was mentioned that there were other laws that circumvent the issues if such situations were to arise. I would, firstly, like to ask the Senior Minister of State what are some of these laws – perhaps she could advise us if it is relevant that it can be circumvented. Secondly, the fraternity that is rendering first aid and paramedical care is quite interested – that is why I have brought the question recurrently.

Mdm Speaker, before I respond, may I ask the Member to clarify when she refers to "a situation to be circumvented", what situation is that? What is sought to be circumvented?

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Madam, it would be a condition where someone is in need of help, and the help is rendered by a member of the public who is not skilled or not a trained person of means, that is, not a doctor or a nurse. That person, in the event of rendering care, has incurred an injury on the victim, and in the event that the victim decides to take action.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for her clarification. Before I address the specific issue that was raised, let me give a background on the Good Samaritan law – what it is and what it is intended to achieve.

In some jurisdictions, Good Samaritan laws impose duties on bystanders to provide reasonable assistance in emergency situations. More typically, however, Good Samaritan laws protect bystanders who volunteer their assistance in emergencies from liability for any wrongdoing following on for such assistance.

So, what is the purpose behind a Good Samaritan law? It actually has two purposes.

The first is to address the situation where people generally do not come forward to assist and the law is intended to require the person to assist. That, of course, presupposes there is a situation where people generally do not assist, but that is not the case here, as I have illustrated.

The second purpose is to protect persons who assist others, to protect them from civil liability. And that, I think, is the scenario which the Member is alluding to, where somebody comes forward to help, but in the course of assisting may actually render further injury to the person.

As explained earlier, our current law only requires a person offering assistance to comply with the standard of care reasonably expected of a person with his skill and responsibility. So, let us say you are somebody who has no medical experience and you go

Page: 20

forward to help and you are helping in good faith, you are not expected to render the kind of assistance that a doctor or a paramedic would be rendering because that is not the level of care that is expected or level of expertise that you have.

By way of assistance and with respect to comparative legislation – perhaps this will help Members to understand what other countries have done – even in other countries, it is not a blanket protection. In British Columbia, for example, they have a Good Samaritan Act where the person coming forward is not liable for damages for injury or death, unless the person is grossly negligent. In the Australian Capital Territory – it is the same thing – the person is exempted unless the person acted recklessly. In Queensland, the person is exempted unless the person acted with gross negligence. In New South Wales, a person is exempted unless the person has failed to exercise reasonable care and skill.

In these examples that I have cited, you can see that if a person acts outside of what is expected of them, meaning if you are a paramedic, for example, but you act without care and skill or you are grossly negligent, you will still be liable in any event. That is not so very different from the law in Singapore where the only standard that is expected of you is of a person with your particular skill and expertise. We would not require a person to have a very high standard if that person is a lay-person and does not have a particular expertise, skill or responsibility.

Page: 21