We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The conditional legal immunity for hosting unlawful content (safe harbour) provided by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is central to the regulation of online platforms in India for two reasons. First, absent this immunity, platforms in India risk being secondarily liable for a wide range of civil and criminal offences. Second, the Indian Government has recognised that legal immunity for user-generated content is key to platform operations and has sought to regulate platform behaviour by prescribing several pre-conditions to safe harbour. This chapter examines the different obligations set out in the Intermediary Guidelines and evaluates the efforts of the Indian government to regulate platform behaviour in India through the pre-conditions for safe harbour. This chapter finds that the obligations set out in the Intermediary Guidelines are enforced in a patchwork and inconsistent manner through courts. However, the Indian Government retains powerful controls over content and platform behaviour by virtue of its power to block content under Section 69A of the IT Act and the ability to impose personal liability on platform employees within India.
Although many emergency medical services (EMS) providers are concerned about liability litigation, no comprehensive, national studies of EMS appelate cases have been published. Information about these cases and the use of liability immunity (sovereign immunity, emergency medical care immunity, or Good Samaritan immunity) as a defense could be used for EMS risk management and better patient care.
Objective:
To review recent EMS system civil litigation cases to determine their common characteristics and the number that used liability immunity as a legal defense.
Methods:
An observational study of the WESTLAW computerized database of legal cases from all state and federal appellate courts. All legal cases that named a member of the EMS system as a defendant, involved either a patient-care incident or ambulance collision, and received an appellate court opinion from 1987 through 1992, were studied.
Results:
Eighty-six cases were identified and analyzed. Most cases (85%) were related to a patient-care incident, and 71 % of the cases involved a death or significant physical injury. More than 49% of the patient cases alleged inadequate assessment or treatment, and 27% alleged delay in ambulance arrival or no ambulance arrival. There were 11 cases (15%) that alleged no transport of the patient to the hospital. Liability immunity was used as a defense in 53% of the cases. The appellate courts ruled in favor of 68% of the defendants that did not use an immunity defense and in favor of 72% of those that did use liability immunity.
Conclusion:
There have been a large number of recent appellate cases involving EMS systems. The common characteristics of many of these cases demonstrate the need for providing rapid ambulance arrival, proper assessment and treatment, and rapid patient transportation to a hospital. Although liability immunity was used as a legal defense by most EMS system defendants, the appellate court outcome was similar regardless of its use.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.