What a Good Samaritan law is
A Good Samaritan law protects you from being sued when you stop to help someone in an emergency.
That is the whole idea in one sentence, and it exists to solve a specific problem: without such a law, the person who pulls a stranger from a burning car could be sued by that stranger for any injury caused in the rescue, while the person who drove past and did nothing could not be sued at all. The law would punish helping and reward indifference.
Every U.S. state and the District of Columbia now has some version of this protection. But they are not the same law fifty-one times. They differ on three questions that decide real cases:
Who is covered. Most states protect “any person.” A handful — Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri — protect only people with specific training or certification. In Illinois, an uncertified bystander who renders first aid is outside the statute’s general provision.
What conduct is covered. Some states protect “emergency medical care.” Others protect “emergency care or assistance,” which reads more naturally to include a non-medical rescue like dragging someone away from a fire. California is the only state whose statute says “medical or nonmedical” in so many words — and it says so because of a lawsuit we will come to.
What defeats the protection. The usual formulation is that you lose immunity for gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct — a much higher bar than ordinary carelessness. But four states, including Florida, condition protection on having acted as a reasonably prudent person, which is the ordinary negligence standard. In those states the protection is meaningfully narrower than the popular understanding of Good Samaritan laws suggests.
Two conditions appear in nearly every state’s statute. You must act in good faith, and you generally must act without compensation. Getting paid for the aid usually takes you outside the law entirely.
Where these laws came from
The name comes from the parable in Luke’s Gospel, in which a Samaritan stops to help a beaten traveler after others pass by. The legal doctrine is far newer.
American common law historically imposed no duty to rescue. A person could watch a stranger drown and face no liability, as long as they had not caused the danger and had no special relationship to the victim. That rule still governs in most of the country.
The problem was the flip side. Once you did intervene, the common law imposed a duty to act reasonably — and a botched rescue could produce liability that never would have attached to doing nothing. Physicians in particular grew reluctant to stop at roadside accidents.
States began passing immunity statutes in the 1960s, initially aimed at doctors. California enacted the first in 1959. Over the following decades most states broadened them to cover any bystander. The result is the patchwork below.
Good Samaritan statutes by state
Every citation below was confirmed against the statutory text. Where a state’s protection is narrower than the heading suggests, the note says so.
B&D Law Group, APLC is licensed to practice in California and Nevada. The state-by-state summary below is general legal information, not legal advice, and is not an offer to represent anyone in a state where the firm is not admitted. If your situation arises in another state, consult an attorney licensed there. These summaries are condensed, and every state’s law contains conditions this table cannot capture.
| State | Statute | What defeats immunity |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 6-5-332 | Failure to act as a reasonably prudent individual |
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. § 09.65.090(a) | Gross negligence; reckless or intentional misconduct |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1471 | Gross negligence |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. § 17-95-101(b) | Bad faith and gross negligence or willful misconduct |
| California | Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1799.102 | Gross negligence; willful or wanton misconduct |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-108(1) | Gross negligence; willful and wanton conduct |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557b(a) | Gross, willful or wanton negligence — covers only an enumerated list of trained persons |
| Delaware | 16 Del. C. § 6801 | Willful, wanton, reckless conduct; gross negligence |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code § 7-401 | Gross negligence |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 768.13(2)(a) | Ordinary negligence — must act as an ordinary reasonably prudent person |
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1-29 | Good faith only — no gross negligence exception in the text |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.5(a) | Gross negligence; wanton acts or omissions |
| Idaho | Idaho Code § 5-330 | Gross negligence |
| Illinois | 745 ILCS 49/67 | Willful and wanton misconduct — requires current first-aid certification |
| Indiana | Ind. Code § 34-30-12-1 | Gross negligence; willful or wanton misconduct |
| Iowa | Iowa Code § 613.17 | Recklessness; willful and wanton misconduct |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-2891b | Gross negligence; willful or wanton acts |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.148 | Willful or wanton misconduct — covers only an enumerated list of trained persons |
| Louisiana | La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2793 | Intentional or grossly negligent acts |
| Maine | 14 M.R.S. § 164 | Willful, wanton or reckless conduct; gross negligence |
| Maryland | Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-603(c)(1) | Ordinary negligence for lay rescuers — aid must be reasonably prudent |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112, § 12V | Gross negligence; willful or wanton misconduct |
| Michigan | MCL 691.1504(1) | Gross negligence; willful and wanton misconduct — CPR and AED use only |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 604A.01, subd. 2 | Willful and wanton or reckless conduct |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. § 73-25-37(1) | Ordinary negligence — good faith and reasonable care required |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.037.2 | Gross negligence; willful or wanton acts — requires recognized first-aid training |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-714(1) | Gross negligence; willful or wanton acts |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,186 | No exception stated in the text |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.500(1) | Gross negligence |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:12, I | Willful or wanton negligence |
| New Jersey | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:62A-1 | Good faith only — no gross negligence exception in the text |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-10-3 | Gross negligence |
| New York | N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 3000-a | Gross negligence |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.14 | Gross negligence; wanton conduct; intentional wrongdoing |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.1-02 | Intentional misconduct; gross negligence |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.23 | Willful or wanton misconduct |
| Oklahoma | 76 Okla. Stat. § 5(A)(2) | No exception stated in this subsection |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.800 | Gross negligence |
| Pennsylvania | 42 Pa. C.S. § 8332 | Intentional harm; gross negligence |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-27.1 | Gross negligence; willful or wanton conduct |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code Ann. § 15-1-310 | Gross negligence; willful or wanton misconduct |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-4.1 | Willful, wanton or reckless acts |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-218(b) | Gross negligence |
| Texas | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.151 | Willful or wanton negligence |
| Utah | Utah Code § 78B-4-501 | Gross negligence; or having caused the emergency |
| Vermont | 12 V.S.A. § 519(b) | Gross negligence; or receiving remuneration |
| Virginia | Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-225(A)(1) | Good faith only — no gross negligence exception in this subsection |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.300(1) | Gross negligence; willful or wanton misconduct |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code § 55-7-15 | Good faith only — no gross negligence exception in the text |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. § 895.48(1) | Good faith only — no gross negligence exception in the text |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-120(a) | Good faith only in this subsection |
Six states where the popular summary is wrong
If you take away one thing from the table, take this: “any bystander is protected against everything short of gross negligence” is not true everywhere.
- Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, and Missouri condition the general protection on training or certification. An untrained bystander is not squarely within these statutes.
- Michigan has no general layperson provision at all. Its Good Samaritan act covers licensed medical personnel, CPR and AED use, block-parent volunteers, and ski patrol. A Michigan bystander performing non-CPR aid is relying on common law, not statute.
- Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, and Alabama apply an ordinary-negligence standard to lay rescuers rather than the gross-negligence standard most people assume.
“Good Samaritan Act” means three different things
People searching for the Good Samaritan Act are usually looking for one of three unrelated bodies of law. It is worth knowing which one applies to your situation.
1. State Good Samaritan Acts
Several states title their statute an “Act” — the Illinois Good Samaritan Act (745 ILCS 49) and the North Dakota Good Samaritan Act (N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.1) among them. These are the emergency-aid immunity laws in the table above.
2. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
A federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1791, enacted in 1996 and named for Missouri Congressman Bill Emerson. It has nothing to do with roadside rescues. It shields businesses, farms, restaurants, and nonprofits from civil and criminal liability when they donate apparently wholesome food in good faith and someone is later harmed by it, absent gross negligence or intentional misconduct.
Congress substantially amended it through the Food Donation Improvement Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-362, signed January 5, 2023), which extended protection to donations made directly to individuals and to food sold at a reduced price.
3. 911 Good Samaritan laws (drug overdose immunity)
A different protection entirely, and for many searchers the one that actually matters. These laws shield people who call 911 during a drug overdose from certain drug charges — addressing the reality that people watch friends die rather than summon help they fear will arrest them.
In California this is Health & Safety Code § 11376.5. It protects both the person who seeks medical assistance in good faith and the person experiencing the overdose, against charges for being under the influence of, or possessing for personal use, a controlled substance, controlled substance analog, or drug paraphernalia.
Its limits are strict and worth stating plainly. The statute says that “no other immunities or protections from arrest or prosecution for violations of the law are intended or may be inferred.” It does not cover charges for sale or distribution, it does not cover driving under the influence, and the protection is lost if the caller obstructs medical or law enforcement personnel.
California’s Good Samaritan law in depth
California’s statute is Health & Safety Code § 1799.102, and its current wording is the direct product of a case that made national news.
The statute
Subsection (b)(2) is the operative provision for ordinary people:
“No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.”
Subsection (b)(1) states the Legislature’s purpose: “to encourage other individuals to volunteer, without compensation, to assist others in need during an emergency.”
Subsection (c) is a limit that matters — nothing in the section “shall be construed to change any existing legal duties or obligations.”
Four elements have to line up. You must act in good faith, not for compensation, render emergency medical or nonmedical care, at the scene of an emergency. Miss one and the immunity does not attach.
Van Horn v. Watson and the two words that were missing
On Halloween night in 2004, Alexandra Van Horn was a passenger in a car that crashed into a light pole in Los Angeles. Lisa Torti, riding in a following vehicle, pulled Van Horn from the wreck — she later said she saw smoke and liquid and feared an explosion. Other witnesses disputed whether any such hazard existed. Van Horn was left paralyzed, and she sued Torti, alleging the removal caused or worsened her injury.
Torti invoked the Good Samaritan law. On December 18, 2008, the California Supreme Court held 4–1 that she could not use it. As the statute was then written, § 1799.102 immunized only “emergency medical care.” Torti had performed a rescue, not medical care, so the immunity did not reach her. Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal.4th 322 (2008).
The decision produced immediate public alarm — the widely repeated version was that California had made it dangerous to pull someone from a wrecked car.
The legislative fix
The Legislature responded within months. Assembly Bill 83 (2009) rewrote § 1799.102 to insert the words “or nonmedical” and to add the legislative-intent language now in subsection (b)(1).
That is why California’s statute today reads “emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance” — the only state statute in the country to draw that line so explicitly. It draws it because a case proved the line existed and that people fell through it.
What this means now: a bystander in California who pulls a person from a burning car, applies pressure to a wound, moves someone out of traffic, or performs CPR is within § 1799.102, provided they acted in good faith and without pay. They lose that protection only for gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
What Good Samaritan laws do not protect
The immunity is real but narrow. It fails in these situations:
You caused the emergency. Immunity is for people who arrive at someone else’s misfortune. A driver who causes a collision is not a Good Samaritan for helping afterward. Utah’s statute says so expressly; elsewhere it follows from the structure of the law.
You were paid. Nearly every statute requires the aid be rendered without compensation. Paramedics, ER staff, and other professionals acting in the scope of paid employment are governed by different rules — usually ordinary medical negligence standards.
You already had a duty to act. Section 1799.102(c) preserves existing legal duties. If a special relationship or job already obligated you to help — a lifeguard on duty, a parent, a common carrier toward its passengers — the Good Samaritan law does not erase that obligation.
Your conduct was grossly negligent. Gross negligence is not the same as a mistake. California courts describe it as a want of even scant care, or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. A rescue that goes badly is protected. A rescue performed with reckless disregard for obvious danger may not be.
You abandoned the person mid-rescue. Once you begin, walking away and leaving someone worse off than you found them — for instance, moving a victim into a more dangerous position and then leaving — can defeat the good-faith requirement. Some states, including Maryland, address relinquishment of care explicitly.
It was not an emergency. The statutes apply at the scene of an emergency. Casual medical advice at a dinner party is not covered.
Five worked examples
These illustrate how the elements apply. They are not legal advice, and every real case turns on its own facts.
1. The highway rescue. You see a car on fire after a rollover on the I-5 and pull the driver out by the arms. The driver has a spinal injury that worsens. Protected in California. You acted in good faith, without pay, at the scene of an emergency, and § 1799.102 expressly covers nonmedical care after AB 83. Absent gross negligence, you are immune. Before 2009, on these facts, you would not have been — this is essentially Van Horn.
2. CPR that breaks ribs. You perform chest compressions on a collapsed stranger and fracture several ribs. Protected. Rib fractures are a recognized consequence of properly performed CPR, not evidence of gross negligence. Every state’s statute covers this, and several — Michigan and Massachusetts among them — are written around CPR specifically.
3. The off-duty nurse. A nurse stops at a crash and provides care while off duty and unpaid. Protected in most states, including California, and several statutes name medical professionals explicitly. The analysis changes if she is on the clock or bills for the care.
4. Moving someone with no reason to. You find an unconscious person on a quiet sidewalk with no traffic, no fire, and no immediate hazard, and you drag them fifty feet by the neck, causing a cervical injury. Protection is at serious risk. There was arguably no emergency requiring movement, and the manner of handling may be an extreme departure from ordinary care. This is where gross negligence arguments live.
5. The overdose call. You call 911 for a friend who has overdosed and you are holding a small amount of a controlled substance for personal use. Protected under H&S § 11376.5 against charges for personal-use possession and being under the influence — provided you sought help in good faith and did not obstruct responders. Not protected if the quantity supports a sale or distribution charge, or if you drove there under the influence.
Three states where you must help
Good Samaritan laws protect you if you choose to help. Three states go further and require it.
| State | Statute | Duty | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermont | 12 V.S.A. § 519(a) | Give reasonable assistance to a person exposed to grave physical harm | Fine up to $100 |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 604A.01, subd. 1 | Give reasonable assistance at the scene to a person exposed to or suffering grave physical harm | Petty misdemeanor |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-56-1 | Give reasonable assistance at the scene of an emergency | Petty misdemeanor; up to 6 months and/or $500 |
Each excuses you where helping would endanger yourself or conflict with duties to others, and each pairs the duty with immunity for the assistance given.
A few additional states impose narrower, crime-triggered duties — Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-1.6) and Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 940.34) require summoning aid for a victim at the scene of a crime, and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 9.69.100) requires witnesses of certain violent offenses to notify authorities. These are reporting obligations tied to crimes, not general rescue duties.
California imposes no general duty to rescue. A bystander here may walk past without civil or criminal liability.
When a Good Samaritan case becomes a claim
Most people who help in an emergency will never face a lawsuit, and the law is designed to keep it that way. But two situations do produce real claims.
You were injured while helping. Rescuers get hurt. California follows the rescue doctrine — the principle that a person whose negligence creates peril is liable to someone injured attempting a reasonable rescue. If a negligent driver causes a crash and you are injured pulling someone from the wreckage, the claim runs against that driver. Being a volunteer does not make your injury your own problem.
You were injured by someone who tried to help. This is the harder case, because the Good Samaritan law is designed to stop exactly this claim. It succeeds only where the helper’s conduct crosses into gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct, or where an element of the immunity is missing — the helper was paid, caused the emergency, or already owed you a duty.
Either way, the analysis turns on specific facts: what the hazard actually was, what the helper knew, what a reasonable person would have done, and whether anyone was being compensated. These cases are fact-intensive and worth reviewing with a personal injury attorney before assuming the answer.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be sued for helping someone in an emergency? Anyone can file a lawsuit, but in all 50 states and D.C. a Good Samaritan statute gives you a defense. In most states you are protected unless your conduct was grossly negligent or willful. In California, § 1799.102 covers both medical and nonmedical aid given in good faith and without pay.
Does the Good Samaritan law cover CPR? Yes, in every state. Broken ribs from properly performed compressions do not defeat the immunity. Some states, including Michigan, protect CPR and AED use specifically even where broader protection is limited.
Do I have to be trained or certified to be protected? In most states, no — the statute says “any person.” But Illinois requires current first-aid certification, Missouri requires recognized training and limits protection to that level, and Connecticut and Kentucky list the categories of people they cover. Check your own state’s statute.
Does it apply to off-duty doctors and nurses? Generally yes, when they act voluntarily and without compensation. Many statutes name medical professionals explicitly. Protection typically disappears if the care is billed or given in the scope of paid employment.
What if I make the injury worse? Making things worse is not by itself enough to defeat immunity — the law anticipates that emergency aid is imperfect. Liability attaches only if your conduct rose to gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.
Am I required to stop and help? Only in Vermont, Minnesota, and Rhode Island, which impose a general duty to give reasonable assistance. California and most other states impose no such duty on bystanders.
Does the Good Samaritan law protect me if I call 911 during a drug overdose? That is a separate law. California’s Health & Safety Code § 11376.5 protects both the caller and the overdosing person from charges for personal-use possession and being under the influence, if help is sought in good faith and responders are not obstructed. It does not cover sale, distribution, or DUI charges.
Does it protect me if I caused the accident? No. The immunity is for people who come upon someone else’s emergency. If you caused it, ordinary negligence rules govern your liability.
Injured in an emergency in California or Nevada?
Whether you were hurt helping someone else or hurt by someone who tried to help you, whether a Good Samaritan law applies is a fact-specific question with real consequences for your claim.
B&D Law Group, APLC represents injured people across California and Nevada, with offices in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, San Francisco, Lake Forest, and North Las Vegas. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we recover for you.
If your accident happened in a state where we are not admitted, we cannot represent you, but that state’s bar association can refer you to a licensed attorney there.