An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 19.2-83.6:1, relating to law-enforcement officers; duty to render aid upon danger to life or limb; civil immunity.
HB273 adds a new section to the Code of Virginia requiring law-enforcement officers, while performing their duties, to render aid to any person they observe suffering from a serious bodily injury or life-threatening condition when circumstances objectively permit and when doing so would not endanger the officer, the injured person, or others. The bill frames this as an affirmative duty tied to the officer’s on-duty conduct and the practical limits of the situation.
The measure also directs the Department of Criminal Justice Services to adopt regulations setting minimum standards for basic medical training for law-enforcement officers, including emergency first aid training. In addition, the bill provides civil immunity for officers who render or withhold aid under the new section, so long as their conduct does not involve gross negligence or willful misconduct.
The bill amends Virginia law by creating a new statutory duty for law-enforcement officers and by establishing a related civil-liability standard. It affects the Code of Virginia in Title 19.2 and requires DCJS to promulgate training regulations, which may influence academy curricula, in-service training, and agency policies statewide. The immunity provision limits personal-injury and wrongful-death claims arising from aid decisions made under the statute, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
The available record shows the bill was enacted as Chapter 583 and approved by the Governor, with no recorded committee transcripts or roll-call votes in the provided materials. That suggests the measure moved without documented public controversy in the supplied context. Overall, the legislative outcome indicates support for requiring basic emergency aid from officers and for formalizing training and liability protections.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided committee or vote history. Based on the text alone, the most likely areas of concern would be the scope of the officer’s duty to render aid, the standard for judging when aid can be safely provided, and the balance between encouraging intervention and preserving civil immunity. Potential stakeholders include law-enforcement agencies, training officials, civil litigants, and public-safety advocates, but the supplied record does not show any named opposition or debate.