an accident or emergency” language to include care rendered in a hospital if, in 1987, it conferred an additional grant of immunity to Good Samaritans while they transport victims from the scene to the hospital. Plaintiffs additionally dispute that most other jurisdictions have immunized physicians in hospitals. Finally, plaintiffs assert that Dr. Ranzini had a pre-existing duty to assist Mrs. Velazquez. Ill The term “Good Samaritan” derives from a New Testament parable in which a Samaritan was the only passer-by to aid a man who had been left hal he common law recognized a duty to do so reasonably, and the volunteer could be held liable for injuries caused by his or her negligent assistance. Malloy, supra, 232 P.2d at 247; cf. United States v. DeVane, 306 F.2d 182, 186 (5th Cir.1962) (<HOLDING>). Dean Prosser aptly summarized the common law:
holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that the coast guards forcible evacuation of a sinking sea vessel constituted a seizure of the persons therein holding that the united states could be liable under the ftca for the negligent operation of a lighthouse despite the fact that the initial decision to undertake the lighthouse service was discretionary holding that coast guards decision to undertake or abandon rescue is discretionary but having undertaken the rescue and engendering reliance thereon the obligation arose to use reasonable care in carrying out the rescue holding that the discretionary function exception applied where the coast guard had implied statutory authority to order the evacuation of a sinking ship