MEMO

TO: Senior Partner

FROM: Steven Bilyeu
DATE: September 20, 2007
RE: Hobart File

I. BRIEF CONCLUSION

Dr. Ethel Hobart can use State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007).

as a defense to the Orcas’s lawsuit.

II. ISSUE
At issue here is whether a person is liable for civil damages for an act performed

during an emergency that may have led to an injury.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Hobart was traveling on Olga St; she then turned north on Broadway Ave after

seeing no cars coming, when she turned she was unaware of the cyclist that was on

Broadway. The cyclist then swerved out of Dr. Hobart’s car and into a lane where cars

where traveling the opposite direction of Dr. Hobart’s car. At this point traveling on

the lane where the cyclist is now on, is Emma Ponton and her 8 yr old passenger

Daniel Orca. Emma Ponton swerve to miss the cyclist and hit a telephone pole

seriously injuring Daniel. Dr Hobart immediately called 9-1-1 and provided medical

care to Daniel until the ambulance. The Orca’s have already settled with Dr. Hobart’s

auto insurance for negligence of operating a motor vehicle. The current lawsuit is

only for the post accident events that may have led to Daniel’s injury to her left arm

1
 where it has limited movement. The Orca’s believe Daniels injuries are because Dr.

Hobart’s negligence in moving Daniel’s neck.

IV. ANALYSIS

State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). States (a)A person who in

good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed

during the emergency unless the act is intentionally or willfully wrongful, including a

person who:(1) Administers emergency care using automated external defibrillator; or

(2) Administers emergency care as a volunteer who is a first responder to any criminal or

terrorist act.(b) This section does not apply to care administered:(1) For or in expectation

or anticipation of remuneration, or (2) By a person who was at the scene of the

emergency because s/he was soliciting business or seeking to perform a service for

remuneration(c) This section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission

was a contributing or producing cause for which care is being administered. Id. The only

part that applies to the current case is section (a). and clearly the accident was an

emergency situation that required Dr. Hobart to provide care to Daniel. Section (c) of the

State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). would be a viable option to have a

lawsuit if they were suing Dr.Hobart for her negligence for her driving but they are suing

Dr. Hobart under negligence for her actions after the accident which she would not be

currently liable under Id.

2
 IV. CONCLUSION

I have reached my conclusion on the basis of State Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). Section (a). I believe the post accident atmosphere

was an emergency situation, and because of the situation Dr. Hobart is not liable

for negligence for civil damages that Orca’s have claimed.