ROBERT BOTTE, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT B. POMEROY, D/B/A SOUTH SEAS APARTMENTS; AND ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A quadriplegic plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence claim against a good Samaritan who allegedly moved him despite explicit instructions not to do so, causing his paralysis. The court reversed, holding that Florida's Good Samaritan statute immunity does not apply when assistance is rendered over the victim's objections and fails to meet the standard of an ordinarily prudent person.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the Good Samaritan statute does not provide immunity under these facts because the assistance was rendered over the victim's objection and because any good Samaritan must assist like an ordinarily prudent person, allowing injured parties to bring negligence claims that survive summary judgment.
[1] A Good Samaritan statute providing immunity from liability for assistance rendered at an emergency scene is rendered inapplicable when the injured party expressly objects…
[2] The "without objection" clause in a Good Samaritan statute can be interpreted to allow an injured party to control the scope of rescue operations, thereby negating statut…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the assistance rendered must be accomplished 'without objection.' Here the injured party's testimony was that he insisted that he not be moved and that rescue operations be restricted to calling an ambulance.”
Establishes that the good Samaritan statute's 'without objection' language does not apply when the victim explicitly objects to the assistance provided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe injured party, after extensive alcohol and drug use, fell outside around 5:00 A.M. and passed out. When he yelled for help, a neighboring resident…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This appeal is a consequence of a summary judgment granted in favor of a good Samaritan which we must reverse.
The record strongly suggests that the injured party’s accident was self-inflicted as a result of excessive use of alcohol and drugs. Around 5:00 A.M. after extended carousing he ventured outside, fell .down and passed out. Later while lying on the ground, he yelled for help and awoke the good samari- tan who got out of bed and came to his assistance.
Taking the testimony in the light most favorable to the injured party, which indeed we must, it is alleged that when the good Samaritan responded to the yells for help he was told by the injured party to call an ambulance but not to move him because the latter had no feeling in his arms and legs or from the waist down. Ignoring this entreaty, the good Samaritan allegedly moved the stricken party and removed his pants, rendering the latter a quadriplegic.
We are all familiar with the Good Samaritan statute which supposedly insulates from liability those who assist injured parties at the scene of an emergency. See Section 768.13, Florida Statutes (1981). However, that statute is rendered impotent under the facts of this incident because of the included statutory language that the assistance rendered must be accomplished “without objection.” Here the injured party’s testimony was that he insisted that he not be moved and that rescue operations be restricted to calling an ambulance.
We are unhappy that the statute has been watered down by the inclusion of “without objection” language. After all, many victims in distress will quite naturally say: “don’t touch me, it hurts.” As we see it, the employment of this language permits the injured party to, in effect, control the rescue operations so that the immunity envisaged is obviated.
As if the foregoing were not enough, there is another portion of the statute that completes its emasculation, because the good Samaritan is required to render his assistance like an “ordinary reasonably prudent man.” Obviously any sensible plaintiff’s lawyer can plead around a statute such as this and get to the jury. As it now stands, it does not appear to be a very good idea to render assistance to an accident victim.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.A. Fitness Int'l, LLC v. Julianna Tringali Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…cerns regarding the potential impact of our ruling in this case. The Good Samaritan statute, which purports to insulate from liability those who assist injured parties in an emergency, in truth, provides very little protection. See Botte v. Pomeroy, 438 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The immunity given under the Act to a person who gratuitously renders aid to an injured person is conditioned upon that person rendering aid "as an ordinary reasonably prudent person.” Because this is no different than the…
-
Botte v. Pomeroy, 497 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…ANSTEAD, Judge. This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in an action for personal injuries. In an earlier appeal, this court reversed a summary judgment entered for defendants. Botte v. Pomeroy, 438 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984). The case then proceeded to trial. Because we believe the trial court érred in a number of important evidentiary rulings, we reverse for a new trial. Robert Botte was the plaintiff below.…
-
Campbell v. Kessler, 848 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…tected if they are carrying out volunteer duties in good faith and as reasonably prudent persons. The same language in the Good Samaritan Act, § 768.13(2)(a), has been recognized as offering no protection to a negligent party. See Botte v. Pomeroy, 438 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Even where the goal may be laudable in supporting volunteers within our communities, “[e]ourts have no authority to interpret a statute such that the interpretation would extend, modify, or limit its express terms or its re…