Swenson v. Waseca Mut. Ins. Co. - 653 N.W.2d 794 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)

Rule:

The Minnesota Good Samaritan statute imposes a duty to help on anyone present at the scene of an emergency who knows another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm, provided that the person can lend assistance without danger or peril to themselves. Minn. Stat. § 604A.01, subd. 1 (2002). The second component of the statute provides immunity to any person who: without compensation or the expectation of compensation, renders emergency care, advice, or assistance at the scene of an emergency or during transit to a location where professional medical care can be rendered, unless the person acts in a willful and wanton or reckless manner in providing the care, advice, or assistance.

Facts:

Kelly Swenson, 13 years old, suffered an apparent dislocated knee when her snowmobile went into a ditch. A passing motorist, Lillian Tiegs, stopped and, after first unsuccessfully attempting to summon help by way of a cell phone, offered to give Swenson a ride to a nearby hospital in New Prague, Minnesota. Tiegs agreed to make a brief stop at the Tiegs' residence, less than a quarter-mile away, to allow Swenson's companions to park their snowmobiles there and accompany Swenson to the hospital. As Tiegs pulled into traffic, a speeding tractor-trailer struck her vehicle. Swenson died as a consequence of the traffic accident. The respondent insurer, Waseca Mutual Insurance Company, was granted summary judgment by the district court, holding that Tiegs' actions were protected by Minnesota's Good Samaritan law. The district court ruled Tiegs was providing assistance at the scene of an emergency and during transit to a hospital and was therefore immune from liability. The representative argued that the district court erred as a matter of law by holding that the Good Samaritan law applied to negligent driving while transporting an injured person from an accident scene to a hospital and that Tiegs was acting at the scene of an emergency.

Issue:

Did Minnesota’s Good Samaritan law provide immunity from a negligence claim where a layperson attempted to transport an injured person from the scene of an accident to a health-care facility?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

In affirming, the court determined that Tiegs was protected under § 604A.01, subd. 2(a), because she was driving the child to the hospital. According to the court, Section 604A.01, subd. 2(a), did not require that emergency personnel transport the child to the hospital. Moreover, the circumstances presented qualified for an emergency. The fact that Tiegs planned to make a short side trip did not mean that an emergency did not exist. Finally, the court held that § 604A.01, subd. 2(a), did not require grave injuries to provide protection.