Connecticut House Bill HB05341

Connecticut 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/1/18
• Refer: 3/1/18
• Report Pass: 3/23/18
• Refer: 3/29/18
• Report Pass: 4/5/18
• Refer: 4/10/18
• Report Pass: 4/11/18

Caption

An Act Providing Immunity From Liability For School Bus Drivers Who May Administer Epinephrine To A Student In An Emergency Situation.

Impact

If enacted, HB 5341 will amend existing statutes regarding liability for individuals who provide emergency medical assistance, particularly focusing on school bus drivers. The bill intends to facilitate a safer transportation environment for students by encouraging drivers to administer emergency care when needed. By providing liability immunity, the legislation was designed to alleviate concerns that drivers might otherwise have about their legal exposure when providing potentially life-saving interventions, thus promoting a more responsive approach to managing allergic emergencies on school buses.

Summary

House Bill 5341 aims to provide immunity from liability for school bus drivers who administer epinephrine in emergency situations to students with known allergies. With the increasing prevalence of severe allergic reactions among children, the bill seeks to ensure that school bus drivers can act swiftly in emergencies without the fear of facing civil legal repercussions for ordinary negligence. This legislative measure reflects a growing recognition of the critical role that timely medical intervention can play in protecting students' health and well-being while they are under the care of school transportation staff.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 5341 appears to be largely positive, with supporters emphasizing the importance of ensuring student safety and encouraging quick action in emergency situations. School officials, parents, and legislators concerned with student welfare have publicly supported the bill, seeing it as a necessary measure. There may, however, be some hesitation among certain stakeholders regarding the implications of legal immunity, raising questions about accountability and the potential for negligence claims in severe cases where interventions do not yield the desired outcomes.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between ensuring rapid response in emergencies while maintaining an adequate quality of care. Some critics may argue that immunity should not extend to gross negligence, suggesting that there must still be a standard of care required of those administering emergency medication. Additionally, discussions may arise regarding how the bill delineates training requirements for drivers and whether the provision of such emergency medical care falls within the normal scope of their duties.