Exemption from Civil Liability in the Good Samaritan Law

'선한 사마리아인 법'에 따른 민사책임의 감경 - 응금의료에 관한 법률 제5조의2을 중심으로 -

In this paper the good Samaritan civil liability is argued. In many cases some damage could be caused by an emergency medical service. In such situations the degree of duty of care taken by the service provider would be alleviated depending upon the degree of emergency. Then the service provided by anyone not carrying any duty to do so could be generally ruled by the 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735. This article is related to the management of affairs in urgency. The application of this article means the mitigation of civil liability of the service provider. If the service provider not carrying any duty to provide it "has managed the affairs" of the service "in order to protect the" victim "against an imminent danger to the latter's life", the provider "shall not be liable for any damages caused thereby, unless he acted intentionally or with gross negligence". Korea has another rule applied in such a situation, that is the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2. This article is established for the exemption from responsibility for well-intentioned emergency medical service. It could be referred to as the Good Samaritan law. It provides: "In cases where no intention or gross negligence is committed on the property damage and death or injury caused by giving any emergency medical service or first-aid treatment falling under any of the following subparagraphs to an emergency patient whose life is in jeopardy, the relevant actor shall not take the civil liability ${\cdots}$" In this paper the two articles is compared in the viewpoints of the requirements for and effects of the application of them respectively. The 'Korean Civil Act' Article 735 is relatively general rule against the the Korean 'Emergency Medical Service Act' Article 5-2 in the same circumstance. Therefore the former could be resorted to only if any situation could not satisfy the requisites for the application of the latter. In this paper it has suggested that the former article be more specific for the accuracy of making decision to apply it; and that the latter be revise in some requirements including the victim, the service provider, and the service.