Legal Protection for Good Deeds.

Legal Protection for Good Samaritans and Volunteers

People sometimes hesitate to help in an emergency, volunteer at a community event, or organise an activity because they fear being sued if something goes wrong. The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 was introduced to reassure people that courts must consider the wider circumstances in which an alleged act of negligence occurred. The Act applies to negligence and breach of statutory duty claims in England and Wales. It does not prevent a claim from being brought and does not confer complete immunity from liability on volunteers, employers, or rescuers.

What Does the Law Require?

When deciding whether a person was negligent or breached a statutory duty, the court must consider whether:

• The person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members;
• The person had demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or interests of others; or
• The person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist someone in danger.

These factors form part of the court's overall assessment. The court must still examine the facts and decide whether the defendant acted with the level of care reasonably expected in the circumstances.

Acting for the Benefit of Society

The court must consider whether the alleged negligence occurred while the defendant was carrying out an activity for the benefit of society or any of its members. This may be relevant to:

• Volunteers;
• Charity workers and trustees;
• Community organisations;
• Sports and social clubs;
• People organising local events;
• Individuals helping neighbours or vulnerable people; and
• Businesses or professionals carrying out socially beneficial work.

The fact that an activity benefited the community does not excuse clearly careless conduct. It is one factor the court must weigh when deciding whether reasonable care was taken.

A Predominantly Responsible Approach

The court must also consider whether the defendant demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others while carrying out the activity. This provision can be relevant where an organisation or employer generally took safety seriously, but a particular accident nevertheless occurred. Evidence of a responsible approach may include:

• Suitable risk assessments;
• Proper training and supervision;
• Maintaining equipment;
• Responding to known hazards;
• Following relevant safety guidance;
• Investigating earlier incidents; and
• Taking reasonable precautions appropriate to the risk.

The court may look at the defendant's conduct as a whole rather than focusing exclusively on one isolated Act. However, a generally good safety record does not automatically defeat a claim. An employer or organiser may still be liable where the particular failure caused injury and fell below the required legal standard.

Heroic Action in an Emergency

The Act requires the court to consider whether the defendant was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger. This could include:

• Giving emergency first aid;
• Helping someone involved in a road accident;
• Attempting to rescue a person from fire or water;
• Moving someone away from an immediate danger; or
• Taking urgent action while waiting for emergency services.

Emergency decisions are often made quickly and under considerable pressure. A court should Judge the person's actions in the context of the emergency rather than with the benefit of hindsight.

Are Good Samaritans Immune from Being Sued?

No. The Act does not provide complete legal immunity. A person could still be liable if their conduct was unreasonable and caused injury or loss. For example, protection is unlikely to assist someone who:

• Acted recklessly;
• Created an unnecessary danger;
• Ignored an obvious and serious risk;
• Attempted a procedure they knew they could not perform safely;
• Continued after professional help became available; or
• Made the situation materially worse through unreasonable conduct.

The law instead requires the court to take proper account of the fact that the person was trying to help.

Is There a Legal Duty to Help?

There is generally no broad legal duty requiring an ordinary member of the public in England and Wales to rescue another person or provide medical assistance. A duty may arise in particular circumstances, including where:

• The person created the danger;
• There is a recognised relationship of responsibility;
• The person has a contractual or professional duty;
• The person has assumed responsibility and another person relies upon them; or
• Specific legislation imposes a duty.

Someone who chooses to intervene should take reasonable care in the circumstances.

Giving First Aid

A person providing emergency first aid should:

• Call 999 where urgent medical assistance is required;
• Follow instructions given by the emergency operator;
• Act within their knowledge and ability;
• Avoid moving an injured person unless necessary for safety;
• Use available equipment only where they understand how to use it; and
• Hand over to trained professionals when they arrive.

The appropriate standard will depend on the person's training and the circumstances. A medically qualified professional may be expected to exercise greater skill than an untrained member of the public.

Consent in an Emergency

A conscious adult with capacity can normally refuse assistance, even where others believe that refusal is unwise. Where a person is unconscious or lacks capacity, urgent treatment or assistance may generally be provided where it is reasonably believed to be necessary and in their best interests. Only the treatment or action reasonably required by the emergency should be undertaken.

Community Events and Volunteers

The law does not require every community activity to eliminate all possible risk. Organisers should take reasonable and proportionate precautions based on:

• The nature of the event;
• The number and age of participants;
• The location;
• The activities involved;
• Any known hazards;
• The experience of volunteers; and
• Relevant legal or insurance requirements.

A straightforward written risk assessment can help identify significant hazards without making a small event unnecessarily complicated. The SARAH Act does not remove the need for suitable insurance where this is legally required or reasonably appropriate.

Employers and Workplace Accidents

The Act can apply to claims against employers where an employee is injured at work. A court must consider whether the employer had demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach to safety. However, employers remain subject to duties under health and safety legislation, employment law and the law of negligence. An employer cannot avoid liability merely by arguing that the injured employee was careless. The court may need to consider:

• Whether the employer provided a safe system of work;
• Whether suitable equipment and training were provided;
• Whether the employee followed instructions;
• Whether the employer knew about the unsafe practice;
• Whether supervision was adequate; and
• Whether the employee contributed to the accident.

Where the injured person was partly responsible, compensation may be reduced for contributory negligence rather than the claim failing.

Health and Safety Requirements

Health and safety law is intended to control real and material risks, not prevent every activity that involves any possibility of harm. Organisations should take reasonable and proportionate precautions. The appropriate response to a low-risk village event will not necessarily be the same as that required for construction work, machinery, or hazardous substances. The SARAH Act did not repeal or reduce existing health and safety duties.

Claims Against Volunteers and Organisations

A claim may be brought against:

• The individual volunteer;
• The charity or community organisation;
• An employer;
• The occupier of the premises;
• An event organiser;
• A professional adviser; or
• An insurer dealing with liability on behalf of an insured party.

The correct defendant will depend on who owed the duty, who controlled the activity and how the accident occurred. Volunteers should check whether the organisation has suitable public liability insurance and whether the policy covers volunteers.

What to Do After an Accident

Anyone involved in an accident during an emergency, voluntary activity or community event should preserve relevant evidence. This may include:

• Photographs and video recordings;
• Witness names and contact details;
• Risk assessments;
• Training records;
• Accident reports;
• Medical evidence;
• Insurance information; and
• A written account of what happened.

The incident may also need to be reported to an insurer, employer, governing body or health and safety authority. Do not admit legal liability or agree to compensation before obtaining advice, although appropriate concern and practical assistance can still be offered.

Obtaining Legal Advice

The effect of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act depends on the full circumstances of the case. The fact that someone volunteered or attempted a rescue is important, but it does not resolve the question of liability on its own. A solicitor may advise where:

• A person was injured while being assisted;
• A volunteer or organiser has received a compensation claim;
• An insurer has refused cover;
• A workplace accident involved alleged employee carelessness;
• There is disagreement about health and safety responsibilities; or
• The accident caused serious injury or financial loss.

To find a Personal Injury, Employer Liability or Civil Litigation Solicitor, use the search facility at the top of this page.