Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Chamley v. Khokha

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 2007No. 20060261Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrothers, Justice

[¶ 42] I cannot agree that as a matter of law North Dakota’s Good Samaritan Act precludes a physician from claiming immunity from civil liability for actions taken while providing voluntary assistance during an in-hospital medical emergency. I therefore concur in the result because I would have remanded this case for trial on disputed issues of fact arising under our law.

[¶ 43] The majority holds as a matter of law that Dr. Khokha cannot be immune from suit because he was paid for rendering medical care within his employer’s hospital. I disagree with them because they *875read more into our law…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sagan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  2. City of Dickinson v. ThressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Velazquez Ex Rel. Velazquez v. JiminezSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
  4. Lawrence v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  5. McDowell v. GillieNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API