Rescuers and the concept of a "negligent rescue"

Although in Anglo-American torts law there is no universal positive duty to require rescue, it is now a facet of many continental jurisdictions and increasingly in Canada and the USA to enact a "Good Samaritan" statute which gives an underpinning for rescue efforts. However, the corollary is that many of these statutes give immunity from suit to rescuers. Some of these statutes stipulate that rescuers must act with reasonable care, which is a codification of the Common Law structure. It follows that both that legislation and the Common Law exclude conduct by the rescuer which is "foolhardy", "wanton", "grossly negligent" or "reckless". What therefore is the test of a "negligent rescue" which might give rise to liability? What are the current parameters? Should rescuers be granted immunity in the United Kingdom? What might be the consequences of enacting a Good Samaritan statute here? Dr Fulbrook analyses some of the principal cases in Britain, the United States and Canada, and sets out a possible framework for litigation.