Summary — HB 4108 (Good Samaritan Act — Bleeding Control Immunity)
Status & Timeline
- Introduced: March 7, 2025 (Sponsor: Rep. Dave Prestin).
- Committee referral: initially to the House Committee on Health Policy. Reported with substitute and advanced; House passage recorded September 25, 2025. Subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety (9/29/2025).
- Tie‑bar: the bill contains an enactment condition — it does not take effect unless a companion bill (identified in analyses as HB 4847 / HB 4109 in related documents) is also enacted.
Purpose
- To amend Michigan’s Good Samaritan Act (1963 PA 17; MCL 691.1501–691.1507) by adding a new section (proposed MCL 691.1508) that extends civil liability protection to private individuals who voluntarily provide bleeding‑control measures during an emergency.
Key provisions
- Adds immunity from civil damages for any individual who, having no legal duty to do so and acting in good faith during an emergency medical situation, voluntarily applies bleeding control to another person. Examples of covered measures explicitly listed:
- Direct pressure
- Applying a dressing
- Wound packing
- Use of a tourniquet
- Limits on immunity: the protection does not apply to acts or omissions that constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
- Cross‑statute consistency: companion legislation (HB 4847) would update certain health‑club provisions to ensure references to the Good Samaritan Act include the new bleeding‑control protections.
Who would be affected
- Primary beneficiaries: bystanders, trained lay rescuers (e.g., Stop the Bleed trainees), school staff, gym patrons or employees, and other private persons who voluntarily render bleeding control in emergencies.
- Potentially affected entities include health clubs and schools insofar as related statutes and training/equipment placement efforts are aligned via companion bills.
Fiscal and legal impact
- Fiscal: indeterminate for state and local governments. The House Fiscal Agency notes uncertainty because costs depend on future litigation arising from alleged gross negligence or willful misconduct claims; local court caseload impacts are similarly unpredictable.
- Legal: narrows liability exposure for good‑faith bleeding control actions while preserving civil remedies for grossly negligent or intentionally wrongful conduct.
Context and rationale
- Supporters cite preventable deaths from uncontrolled hemorrhage and the value of encouraging rapid bystander intervention (e.g., Stop the Bleed training) without fear of civil liability. Opponents or commenters have raised concerns about potential limits on accountability (hence the gross‑negligence exclusion).
Text reference
- Proposed addition: section 8 to 1963 PA 17 (proposed MCL 691.1508). The bill’s effective date is conditioned on enactment of the identified companion bill(s).
