person who renders emergency care with a defribulator “in good faith, not for compensation” is immune
How later courts described this case
- person who renders emergency care with a defribulator “in good faith, not for compensation” is immune
- “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature ... The best evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” (citations omitted)
- if legislative intent can be ascertained from a statute's plain language, that intent must prevail without resort to other interpretive aids
- “The best evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting:
This case presents a narrow question of statutory interpretation: Does the $10,000 damage cap on claims paid out of the Real Estate Recovery Fund apply per claimant or per transaction? The majority holds that the $10,000 cap applies per transaction, so that the two plaintiffs — who were defrauded when their real estate broker absconded with $20,750 in earnest money — may recover only $10,000 for the two of them.
The statute provides, however, that any person aggrieved by the fraudulent act of a real estate broker may recover from the Fund an amount of not more than $10,000 and that the Fund’s maximum liability arising out of the activities of any single broker is limited to $50,000. Thé word "transaction” in the Act is not a word of limitation upon a claimant’s right to recover.
As Justice Holmes once observed, "we do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means.” O. Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417 , 419 (1898). The statute’s plain language provides for a $10,000 cap which applies per claimant — not per transaction; the majority opinion creates the latter limitation out of thin air.
Each plaintiff should be allowed $10,000 for a total claim on the Fund of $20,000 plus attorney fees. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
JUSTICE HARRISON joins in this dissent.