Hoyt, Merrill C.

English

Chicago-Kent College of Law

Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 13 October 1967 The Good Samaritan Statute Merrill C. Hoyt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Merrill C. Hoyt, The Good Samaritan Statute, 44 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 166 (1967). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol44/iss2/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact jwenger@kentlaw.iit.edu, ebarney@kentlaw.iit.edu. CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEWand silence would be sufficient to toll the statute as being fraudulent con-cealment. However, there was present in Barnes, affirmative acts of fraudwhich initially induced the transaction. If those acts also constituted fraud-ulent concealment, the case does not hold that mere silence is enough. Thefact that acts of fraudulent concealment occurred prior to the accruing of acause of action is usually irrelevent for the purpose of tolling the statuteof limitations.40Though Illinois has not yet decided, the better rule would seem to bethat silence when there is a duty to speak is a fraudulent concealment thatwill toll the statute. When a case does present itself to the Illinois courts,there is no reason to suppose that they would choose to adopt the contraryrule. This conclusion draws some support from Illinois decisions whichhave recognized that there is no duty to use due care in discovering thefraud of one who stands in a confidential relationship to another.4 1 Recog-nizing the extra protection given one who stands in a confidential relation-ship to another, the Illinois court's adoption of a rule that invariablyrequires an affirmative act would be somewhat inconsistent.MERRILL C. HoYTTHE GOOD SAMARITAN STATUTEThe Illinois Legislature has recently passed (June 21, 1965) an actdesigned to promote the giving of medical aid to accident victims. Thetheory behind the passage of the act was to encourage physicians fearfulof malpractice suits to stop and render aid to those injured in automobileaccidents. The statute reads,Any person licensed pursuant to this act, or any person li-censed to practice the treatment of human ailments in any otherState or Territory of the United States, except a person licensedto practice midwifery, who in good faith provides emergency carewithout fee at the scene of a motor vehicle accident or in case ofnuclear attack shall not, as a result of his acts or omissions, exceptwilful or wanton misconduct on the part of such person, in pro-viding such care, be liable for civil damages.'This statute, or one similar to it, has been adopted by some thirty-twostates.2 However, it is curious that its enactment was thought to be neces-sary in Illinois where there is not a single reported case of a doctor being40 34 Am. Jur. Limitations § 234 (1941).41 Supra note 37.1 Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 91 § 2a (1965).2 A complete list of those states where this statute or one similar to it has beenenacted can be found in 13 DePaul L. Rev. 297 (1964). Also included there is a morecomplete review of the reasons for enacting the Good Samaritan Statute and the goodexpected to be thereby achieved.MEDICA1, MALPRACTICE IN ILLINOISsued for malpractice after stopping to render aid in an emergency situation. 3The object of the statute must have been to remove what was apparentlyan unfounded fear. Perhaps a program designed to educate physicianswould have served the same end without denying a victim of negligentemergency care his remedy. Nevertheless, the statute has been enacted anddoes bar all actions which arise under the conditions described in thestatute.This statute has not yet been tested as to its constitutionality. Itwould appear to be especially vulnerable to an attack Article II, § 19 of theIllinois Constitution:Every person ought to find a certain remedy in the laws forall injuries and wrongs which he may receive in his person, prop-erty or reputation; he ought to obtain, by law, right and justicefreely, and without being obligated to purchase it, completely andwithout being obligated to purchase it, completely and withoutdenial, promptly, and without delay.That the statute clearly deprives a person injured by the negligent treat-ment of a doctor in certain emergency situations is clear. Whether it is in factunconstitutional as conflicting with Article II, § 19 will not be discussedhere.4MERRILL C. HOYT3 13 DePaul L. Rev. 297 (1964).4 The first time the legislature passed the Good Samaritan Statute, Governor Kernervetoed it. The Governor stated that, in his opinion, the statute would be unconstitutionalunder the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Consti-tution, and as special legislation prohibited by the Illinois Constitution, Art. IV, § 22.CHICAGO-KENTLAW REVIEWCopyright 1968 Chicago-Kent College of LawPUBLISHED SPRING AND FALL BY THE STUDENTS OFCHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW, 10 N. FRANKLIN STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOISSubscription Price, $4.00 per year Single Copies, $2.50 Foreign Subscription, $4.50EDITORIAL BOARDEditor-in-ChiefGERALD J. SMOLLERAssociate EditorsRICHARD A. BRAUN WILLIAM L. GREENEDWIGHT ADAMSALLYN A. BROOKSHOWARD M. HOFFMANNMERRILL C. HOYTWILLIAM J. JOOSTJERRY C. LAGERQUISTROBERT A. TINGLERCandidatesHuGo ARQUILA, JR.FRANK J. DOTIEDWARD A. HOFFMAN ALADAR F. SILEsCHARLES W. STAUDENMAYERKATHERINE D. AGARBOARD OF MANAGERSRALPH BRILL, Chairman and Faculty AdvisorFRED HERZOC JAMES K. MARSHALL WM. F. ZACHARIASThe College assumes no responsibility for any statementappearing in the columns of the ReviewVOLUME 44 FALL, 1967 NUMBER 2

The Good Samaritan Statute

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2052&context=cklawreview

The Good Samaritan Statute

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Chicago-Kent College of Law