Emergency services: liability.
If passed, AB 369 would significantly impact California's civil liability laws by clarifying that individuals administering non-prescription anti-seizure medications in emergency situations are protected as long as they exercise reasonable care and do not act with gross negligence. This addition to the Civil Code (Section 1714.27) would encourage volunteers and bystanders to help without the fear of being sued or prosecuted for their good Samaritan actions, thereby enhancing the response to medical emergencies linked to seizures. It aims to foster a more supportive environment where community members feel empowered to assist during critical emergencies involving seizure victims.
Assembly Bill 369, introduced by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez, seeks to provide legal immunity to individuals who administer emergency anti-seizure rescue medication during emergencies. The bill specifically targets those who are not licensed to administer such medication but act in good faith, without compensation, and with reasonable care while helping a person suspected of experiencing a seizure. This legislation builds on the existing Seizure Safe Schools Act, which allows trained volunteers in schools to administer anti-seizure medication to students diagnosed with seizure disorders. The primary goal of AB 369 is to lessen the fear of legal repercussions for non-professionals who assist individuals in seizures, thereby encouraging timely and potentially life-saving interventions.
The sentiment surrounding AB 369 appears largely positive among legislators and advocacy groups focused on improving emergency responses for seizure patients. Proponents argue that this bill addresses an essential gap in current law that deters well-meaning individuals from intervening. There is a shared belief that establishing liability protections will ultimately save lives and reduce the danger associated with delays in administering necessary medications. However, concerns may arise among those wary of potential misuse of this immunity by individuals who might administer the medication irresponsibly, although the bill inherently seeks to mitigate this risk by specifying a reasonable care standard.
The bill's passage might incite discussions about the boundaries of liability protections and the extent to which non-professionals can intervene in medical emergencies without formal training. Critics may express concern that this could set a precedent for other areas where individuals without licenses assume roles traditionally reserved for trained professionals. Discussions may also highlight the importance of ensuring adequate training and support for volunteers who will operate under this new protection, to safeguard against unintended consequences arising from uninformed decisions in high-stakes scenarios.