Michigan House Bill HB4847

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/4/25
• Refer: 9/4/25
• Report Pass: 9/17/25
• Engrossed: 9/25/25
• Refer: 9/29/25
• Report Pass: 12/4/25
• Refer: 12/4/25

Caption

Torts: liability; immunity for individuals rendering emergency services who apply bleeding control; provide for. Amends sec. 3 of 2006 PA 23 (MCL 333.26313).

Impact

The amendment to the law, as presented in HB 4847, would limit the liability of health clubs concerning the usage of AEDs, potentially influencing how these facilities prepare for medical emergencies. By exempting them from the legal duty to act when an AED is in use, legislators aim to encourage operators to install AEDs without the fear of being held responsible in case of adverse outcomes. This change could lead to a wider adoption of AEDs in health clubs, ultimately promoting public health and safety.

Summary

House Bill 4847 aims to amend the existing law that regulates health clubs with respect to potential medical emergencies, specifically with regard to the use of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) on their premises. The proposed amendment indicates that health club owners, operators, or employees would not have a legal duty to provide emergency services to individuals using an AED. This provision would serve to protect health clubs from liability during an emergency situation where an AED is used to assist someone in distress.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 4847 appears to be largely supportive among those advocating for increased safety measures in public spaces. Proponents believe that the bill could enhance patron safety by encouraging the availability of AEDs in health clubs without the burden of potential lawsuits. However, there may be concerns from legal experts and liability advocates about the implications of limiting duty to render assistance in emergency situations. This duality highlights a crucial balance between promoting public safety and avoiding undue litigation against health clubs.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HB 4847 involve the ethical implications of exempting health club personnel from the duty to assist in emergencies. Some may argue that this provision could undermine the moral obligation to help individuals in crisis, while others might counter that potential liability would deter health clubs from equipping themselves with life-saving devices. The discourse around this bill thus raises important questions about the responsibilities of businesses in public health emergencies and the legal frameworks that support or challenge these responsibilities.