Letting Good Deeds Go Unpunished: Volunteer Immunity Laws and Tort Deterrence

Abstract

Does tort law deter risky behavior in individuals? We explore this question by examining the relationship between tort immunity and volunteering. During the 1980s and 1990s, nearly every state provided some degree of volunteer immunity. Congress followed with the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act. This article analyzes these acts, identifying three motivations for them: the chilling effects of tort liability, limits on liability insurance, and moral concerns. Using data from the Independent Survey's Giving and Volunteering surveys, we then identify a large and positive correlation between immunity and volunteering. We next consider the implications of the findings for tort theory and nonprofit law.

The Limits and Possibilities of Volunteering: A Framework for Explaining the Scope of Volunteer Involvement in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

“…The legal context can also affect the scope of volunteer involvement through volunteers’ decision dimensions. The federal Volunteer Protection Act (1997), preceded by similar legislation in many states (e.g., Horwitz and Mead ; Martinez ; Washington RCW 4.24.670), provides general legal immunity for volunteers acting within the scope of their volunteer responsibilities (Kramer ). Horwitz and Mead () offer some evidence regarding the implications of these policies, in particular, a positive correlation between tort immunity and volunteering—that is, rates of volunteering are higher in jurisdictions with policies that offer greater legal protection to volunteers.…”

A Legal Perspective on the Organization–Volunteer Relationship

“…Beginning in the 1980s, policymakers began to fear that would-be volunteers were avoiding volunteer service out of fear of being held personally liable for mistakes (Horwitz & Mead, 2009; Mandel, 1999; Martinez, 2003; MacChiarola 1988). To be sure, very few lawsuits are brought against volunteers, and those that are brought often involve criminal wrongdoing (Groble & Brudney, 2015).…”

A Study on Legal and Ethical Issues Surrounding Health Practitioner Pro Bono Services

“…This led to the enactment of the Volunteer Health Practitioners Act of 1997 (Horwitz and Meade, 2009 (Weber, 1991). Perhaps much of the perception of "public fear" regarding volunteer service has stemmed from the litigious culture in which we live, coupled with a health care system that does not allow access to all citizens, but is quick to place legal injunctions on those who volunteer to close the gap in health care services.…”

“…Accordingly, the health care practitioner is the individual by using a vehicle that requires an operating license by the state (Runquist and Zybach, 2001;Public Law 105-19, 1997). Some fear that immunity from civil liability breeds a group of "careless or reckless" volunteers, while others state the fear we should be focusing on is the fear of losing volunteer services in a time of dire need for a health care system that does not provide services to the most vulnerable populations (Horwitz and Meade, 2009 Research regarding physical therapist pro bono services is surprisingly lacking. The American Physical Therapy Association goal of autonomous practice, direct access, provided by "doctors of physical therapy" by 2020 must also realize the responsibilities connected to aspirations of a profession striving for a place within the current health care system.…”