Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I congratulate Deputy Timmins for introducing this Bill. It raises important issues of principle. My colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, explained last night that the Government is not in a position to support this Bill. The introduction of the Bill has given an opportunity to examine the issue of what is known in legal and popular discourse as "the good samaritan" and voluntary work afresh.

I want to reiterate the stated intention of the Minister to arrange for the Law Reform Commission to be asked to examine the issue of voluntarism in its widest context. Any such examination must encompass an examination of the issues raised by Deputy Timmins's Bill. Deputy Timmins explained last night that the underlying reason for the introduction of the Bill was to ensure that those who intervene to give help to others and who offer the assistance in good faith could not then be penalised or held liable for personal injuries suffered as a result of their intervention. In particular, he referred to the use of defibrillators by community and voluntary groups, such as the first responder scheme.

I acknowledge the efforts made by schemes such as first responder, which provide training and emergency equipment to residents in remote areas. The policy of the Government regarding tackling the compensation culture is well reflected in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Both Acts brought about fundamental changes in the handling of personal injuries cases. It is wise to wait to see the full effects of the introduction of these Acts before considering further amendments to our civil liability code.

The question of the law on rescuers and good samaritans was considered in the context of the preparation of the Bill leading to the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. A decision was made not to proceed with any reform in respect to this question in the Bill, but to keep the matter under review in the context of the operation of the legislation.

The law of negligence encompasses a number of matters, including a duty of care, a breach of that standard of care and consequential actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. A close causal connection must be demonstrated between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. These matters have been elaborated by judges in court decisions through the centuries. Each case must be considered on its merits by the courts. The courts must examine each case, and the circumstances of each case, to establish whether a legal duty of care exists and whether, on the facts disclosed in that case, a breach of the standard of care has been established.

Under the law as it stands on personal injury litigation, our courts give due weight to the social utility of the conduct of any particular defendant. They take a common sense approach in determining the standard of care, taking into account all of the circumstances. That is not to say a person can be foolhardy or reckless. It must be remembered there is no general duty in our law to go to the assistance of a person in need. We never imposed that duty, and that is why, of course, the subject was debated in this House yesterday and this morning in the context of the good samaritan. The good samaritan or rescuer, which is the other phrase often used in legal discourse, is a person not under any legal duty to do as they do but views himself or herself as being under a moral duty to so behave.

No Irish judicial decision exists on rescuers and good samaritans in the context of them being sued for the conduct in which they engage. A number of Irish legal decisions have been made on the question of whether the good samaritan or rescuer can sue where people suffer injuries in the course of their rescue mission, if I can characterise their conduct in that way. A number of established Irish authorities on that exist, and the authoritative Irish textbook in this area suggests that once upon a time the law treated the rescuer or good samaritan as a "Cinderella plaintiff" but now takes a far more sympathetic view to such a party. No Irish judicial authority exists on the position of the good samaritan who is sued in respect of his or her conduct. No reform on the common law position on rescuers has been carried out in our neighbouring jurisdiction. It is true that some jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have introduced legal and legislative changes in this area. These laws differ widely from state to state and province to province.

From the information available to the Department, it appears evidence does not exist to show a compelling need to change the law as it stands. Research undertaken by the State claims agency found a case has never been taken in the Irish courts wherein a person acting as a good samaritan has been sued for personal injuries. I acknowledge that Deputy Lynch was aware of one such case which was unsuccessful. There is no firm evidence to suggest that concerns about the possibility of liability has discouraged or prevented persons from coming to the aid of others in an emergency.

See this speech in context