An emergency happens and someone rushes in to help. Maybe they pull an injured driver from a crashed vehicle, perform CPR, or try to move someone away from danger. But what happens if that assistance makes the person’s injuries worse?
Ohio law generally protects people who provide emergency medical care in good faith. That protection, however, is not unlimited.
The Ohio Good Samaritan Law can shield certain people from civil liability for emergency assistance, but the specific circumstances matter. Questions can arise about who provided the care, where it occurred, whether compensation was involved, and whether the person’s conduct crossed the legal threshold required to overcome immunity.
At Paulozzi, Alkire & Condeni, our Cleveland personal injury lawyers help injured people across Ohio investigate complicated liability claims, including situations in which someone’s actions during an emergency may have caused or worsened an injury.
Ohio’s primary Good Samaritan statute is found in Ohio Revised Code § 2305.23.
The law generally provides civil liability protection to qualifying individuals who administer emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency outside a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place where medical care is usually offered.
This protection is intended to encourage people to provide emergency assistance without fearing that an unsuccessful rescue attempt will automatically result in a lawsuit.
But Good Samaritan immunity does not mean that anything a person does during an emergency is legally protected.
The statute contains important limitations, which is why the facts surrounding the emergency and the assistance provided can matter significantly.
No.
One of the biggest misconceptions about Good Samaritan laws is that they create absolute immunity whenever someone claims they were trying to help.
Ohio’s law is more specific.
Whether immunity applies can depend on factors such as:
This means an injured person should not automatically assume that there is no potential claim simply because the person who caused additional harm was responding to an emergency.
Ohio Revised Code § 2305.23 applies to emergency care or treatment provided at the scene of an emergency outside certain medical settings.
Several issues can therefore become important.
The statute concerns care or treatment provided at the scene of an emergency.
Situations may include:
Whether a particular situation qualifies can depend on the circumstances.
The statute specifically addresses emergency care or treatment provided at the scene of an emergency outside a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place where medical care is usually offered.
That distinction is important because professional medical treatment provided in a traditional healthcare setting is generally governed by different legal rules.
The statute also addresses remuneration for emergency care.
That is another reason a Good Samaritan case cannot always be evaluated simply by asking whether someone was trying to help. The person’s role, circumstances, and relationship to the emergency may all matter.
Ohio’s statute does not provide unlimited protection.
Under ORC § 2305.23, immunity does not extend to acts or omissions constituting willful or wanton misconduct.
That distinction matters.
An unfortunate outcome, mistake, or unsuccessful rescue does not automatically establish liability. The question is whether the conduct meets the legal standard necessary to fall outside the statute’s protection.
Examples of situations that could raise questions may include a rescuer who knowingly engages in extremely dangerous conduct despite an obvious risk of serious harm.
But whether conduct legally qualifies as willful or wanton is highly fact-specific.
That determination may depend on witness accounts, medical evidence, video, the danger present at the scene, what the rescuer knew at the time, and whether immediate action was necessary.
An honest mistake does not necessarily make someone liable.
That is an important purpose of Good Samaritan protection.
Emergency situations are unpredictable. A bystander usually does not have the time, equipment, information, or controlled environment available to medical professionals.
A person may attempt CPR incorrectly, move someone because they reasonably believe a vehicle could catch fire, or make another split-second decision that later turns out not to have been ideal.
The fact that an injury worsened after assistance therefore does not, by itself, prove that the rescuer can be held responsible.
The circumstances surrounding the decision matter.
Car accidents provide a useful example because bystanders frequently encounter injured people before police, firefighters, or paramedics arrive.
Someone may attempt to:
Suppose a crash victim may have suffered a spinal injury.
Moving that person could potentially worsen the injury. But imagine the damaged vehicle is also on fire. Moving the person may have been necessary to prevent an even greater danger.
Now consider a situation where there was no immediate threat, but someone engaged in extreme or dangerous conduct that caused a separate injury.
Those circumstances present very different liability questions.
This is why Good Samaritan cases must be evaluated based on what was happening at the time the emergency assistance was provided, rather than simply judging the outcome afterward.
Potentially, but the fact that your condition became worse is not enough by itself.
A claim may require determining whether the person is entitled to statutory immunity and, if so, whether their conduct falls within an exception to that protection.
The investigation may focus on questions such as:
That last question is particularly important.
Even if liability can be established, an injured person generally still needs evidence connecting the challenged conduct to additional injuries or damages.
Causation can become one of the most difficult parts of a Good Samaritan injury case.
Suppose a person suffers serious neck and spinal injuries in a car accident and is then moved by a bystander.
Later, doctors determine that the person has permanent spinal damage.
Which damage came from the collision, and which, if any, resulted from being moved?
That question may require medical experts to review:
An insurance company or defendant may argue that all of the injuries resulted from the original emergency.
The injured person’s case may therefore depend on medical evidence establishing that the subsequent conduct caused a new injury or materially worsened an existing one.
Because these incidents happen unexpectedly, evidence can disappear quickly.
Important evidence may include:
People who observed the original accident and the subsequent rescue may help establish what occurred and whether there was an immediate danger.
Video may show how the injured person was moved, what hazards existed, and what happened before emergency personnel arrived.
After a roadway accident, dashcams may capture both the collision and events immediately afterward.
Emergency responders may document the victim’s condition, statements from witnesses, and circumstances at the scene.
Medical evidence can help determine whether an injury occurred during the original accident or was subsequently aggravated.
Depending on the case, physicians, accident reconstruction specialists, or other experts may be needed to analyze causation and the emergency conditions.
When someone is injured during emergency assistance, these are some of the major issues that may need to be investigated:
| Liability Question | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Was There an Emergency? | Ohio’s Good Samaritan protection concerns qualifying care or treatment provided at the scene of an emergency. |
| Where Was the Care Provided? | ORC § 2305.23 addresses emergency care outside a hospital, doctor’s office, or other place where medical care is usually offered. |
| Was Emergency Care or Treatment Being Provided? | Not every action taken near an emergency necessarily qualifies as emergency care or treatment protected by the statute. |
| Was Compensation Involved? | Whether remuneration was involved can affect how the statutory protection applies. |
| Was the Conduct Willful or Wanton? | ORC § 2305.23 does not extend immunity to acts or omissions constituting willful or wanton misconduct. |
| Did the Assistance Cause Additional Harm? | A personal injury claim may require medical evidence distinguishing the original injury from harm allegedly caused or worsened during the rescue. |
Key Takeaway: The fact that someone was trying to help does not automatically answer the liability question. The type of assistance, location, circumstances, conduct, and cause of the additional injury may all need to be examined.
Ohio’s statute is not limited to ordinary bystanders.
Medical professionals may also receive protection when qualifying emergency care is provided under circumstances covered by the statute.
But context matters.
Emergency assistance provided away from a normal healthcare setting is different from medical treatment provided as part of a person’s regular professional duties in a hospital, doctor’s office, or other healthcare setting.
Other Ohio statutes may also apply to particular healthcare professionals, emergency responders, or types of assistance.
For that reason, determining immunity may require identifying who provided the assistance and which Ohio statute governs their conduct.
Ohio has specific statutory provisions addressing the use of automated external defibrillators, commonly called AEDs.
This is another reason “Ohio Good Samaritan Law” should not be treated as one universal rule covering every possible emergency.
Depending on what happened, multiple statutes may need to be reviewed.
If an injury claim involves CPR, an AED, professional emergency responders, or specialized medical assistance, the applicable immunity rules should be evaluated based on the particular facts.
Ohio also has legal protections associated with certain drug overdose emergencies.
These provisions are different from the civil liability protections discussed in ORC § 2305.23.
Overdose-related laws may address circumstances in which a person seeks emergency assistance for someone experiencing an overdose and whether certain criminal consequences apply.
Someone researching an injury allegedly caused during an overdose response should therefore distinguish criminal Good Samaritan protections from civil liability immunity.
They are not necessarily the same legal issue.
If a person has a legally viable claim for injuries caused or worsened during an emergency response, recoverable damages will depend on the circumstances.
Potential damages in a personal injury claim may include:
The important distinction is that compensation must generally be tied to injuries and losses legally attributable to the responsible party.
If the victim was already seriously injured before the rescue occurred, separating those damages can become particularly important.
Good Samaritan liability cases can produce several defenses.
An insurer or defendant may argue that:
A thorough investigation should therefore address both liability and medical causation.
Evidence from an emergency scene may not remain available indefinitely.
Surveillance recordings can be overwritten. Vehicles can be repaired or destroyed. Witnesses may become difficult to locate. Memories fade.
When there is reason to believe emergency assistance caused a serious additional injury, preserving evidence early can help answer critical questions about what happened.
Useful early steps may include obtaining:
Ohio Revised Code § 2305.23 provides certain civil liability protections for qualifying emergency care or treatment provided at the scene of an emergency outside specified medical settings.
Potentially. Good Samaritan protection is not absolute. Whether a claim can proceed depends on the applicable statute and the specific facts, including the nature of the conduct and whether statutory immunity applies.
The statute is not limited solely to doctors or nurses. Whether a particular person is protected depends on the circumstances and statutory requirements.
Good Samaritan laws are intended in part to prevent people from automatically facing civil liability simply because emergency assistance has a poor outcome. A mistake alone does not necessarily eliminate statutory protection.
ORC § 2305.23 expressly excludes acts or omissions constituting willful or wanton misconduct.
Potentially. But establishing a viable claim may require medical evidence showing what injury resulted from the original event and what additional harm was caused by the subsequent conduct.
Ohio personal injury deadlines depend on the nature of the claim and circumstances. Because statutes of limitation and other notice requirements can affect a case, injured people should avoid assuming that a particular deadline automatically applies without evaluating the specific claim.
Ohio’s Good Samaritan Law serves an important purpose. People should be able to provide reasonable emergency assistance without automatically exposing themselves to a lawsuit simply because the outcome was not perfect.
But the protection has limits.
When someone suffers additional harm during an attempted rescue, the legal questions can include whether the statute applies, whether the conduct falls within an exception to immunity, and whether medical evidence can establish that the emergency assistance actually caused or worsened the injury.
At Paulozzi, Alkire & Condeni, our Cleveland personal injury lawyers help injured people across Ohio investigate complex personal injury claims, determine who may be legally responsible, preserve evidence, and evaluate available sources of compensation.
Schedule your free consultation today with Paulozzi, Alkire & Condeni Personal Injury Lawyers. You pay nothing unless we win. Call 800-LAW-OHIO (800-529-6446) or reach out online to discuss your case.
