Introduction
The heroic act of a young Veterinarian made headlines in February 2026 when she saved the life of an oncologist who nearly choked to death on a piece of steak at a well-known restaurant in Durbanville. Bystanders tried to perform the Heimlich manoeuvre, but were unable to open the man’s airway. Another person in the restaurant then called out, asking if anyone was a doctor. The Vet came forward and said that she is not a medical doctor but will try to help. At this point, the oncologist lost consciousness and did not have a pulse. The Vet asked for a sharp knife and proceeded to make an incision in the man’s throat and insert a plastic straw. She blew air through the straw, and the oncologist started to regain consciousness.
What the young Veterinarian did saved the man’s life, but what are the legal implications of such a heroic act? To answer this question, we must look at the “Good Samaritan principle”.
The Good Samaritan principle raises important questions in private law, particularly in the realm of delictual liability. It concerns whether individuals who voluntarily assist others in emergencies can be held liable for harm caused or whether they are protected when acting in good faith. South Africa’s private law approach differs from many European jurisdictions, where statutory provisions explicitly regulate such situations.
The Position in South Africa
South Africa does not have a dedicated Good Samaritan law. Instead, liability is assessed under general principles of delict law and constitutional duties. South African courts have, however, recognised that certain professionals, particularly medical practitioners, may have a constitutional duty to provide emergency assistance. This arises from the right to life and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
In Minister van Polisie v Ewels [1] it was established that an omission can be wrongful if the legal convictions of the community impose a duty to act. This principle underpins the idea that failing to assist in emergencies may expose one to liability. In MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO[2] , the Supreme Court of Appeal considered negligence in a rescue context. The court emphasised that a rescuer’s conduct must be judged by the standard of a reasonable rescuer in an emergency, not by hindsight perfection—this reinforced protection for Good Samaritans who act in good faith.
Case law aside, medical professionals still risk being sued or reported to the Health Professional Council of South Africa should anything go wrong whilst assisting in an emergency, because a Good Samaritan act is not explicitly protected under our law.
The Position in Europe
Many European countries have enacted Good Samaritan laws that explicitly protect individuals who render emergency aid. In France, Article 223-6 of the Penal Code criminalises failure to assist a person in danger, creating a legal duty to act. In Germany, Section 323c of the German Criminal Code imposes a duty to render assistance in emergencies, with immunity for those who act in good faith. Similar provisions exist under the Italian Penal Code, requiring assistance and protecting rescuers from liability unless gross negligence is proven. Unlike South Africa, where liability is assessed case by case, European jurisdictions provide statutory clarity and protection, encouraging bystander intervention without fear of litigation.
Conclusion
South Africa’s approach to the Good Samaritan principle is rooted in constitutional and common law duties rather than statutory protections. This contrasts sharply with European countries, where codified laws impose a duty to assist and shield rescuers from liability. The absence of statutory clarity in South Africa may discourage intervention due to fear of litigation, whereas European frameworks actively encourage bystander aid.
South African law gives everyone a right to emergency medical treatment. However, it does not impose a statutory duty on private doctors to assist strangers. The ethical rules that govern medical professionals, however, compel doctors to help in emergencies within their scope and to arrange prompt referral. If doctors do intervene, they are judged by the standard of a reasonable practitioner in the same circumstances.
Negligence is found only if harm was foreseeable, reasonable precautions were omitted and the breach caused the injury. Complications alone do not imply fault. Doctors should maintain indemnity insurance, act within their competence and document their actions. Medical professionals should ensure that their insurance policies cover Good Samaritan Acts[3].
For further assistance, consult an attorney at SchoemanLaw.
Janet Mc Intosh | SchoemanLaw Inc
Attorney
[1] 1975 (3) SA 590 (A)
[2] (2017, SCA)
[3] https://genoa.co.za/2025/09/28/medical-liability-in-emergencies/#:~:text=The%20HPCSA’s%20ethical%20code%20and,over%20care%20to%20appropriate%20providers. Accessed 6 March 2026
