306 F.2d 182, 186 (5th Cir.1962) (“But having undertaken the rescue and engendered reliance thereon, the obligation arose to use reasonable care in carrying out the rescue”). “[T]he Good Samaritan rule does not impose liability for merely negligent failure to confer a benefit, but only for negligently making matters worse.” Rodrigue v. United States, 968 F.2d 1430, 1434 (1st Cir.1992) (rejecting a claim that the Air Force violated the Good Samaritan Rule when it negligently waited four hours to send a helicopter to rescue a drowning swimmer because there was no evidence that the negligence worsened his position, but suggesting that such a claim would fly if there was evidence that the Air Force had assured other would-be rescuers of an imminent rescue); see DeVane, 306 F.2d at 186 (<HOLDING>). The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323
holding that fishing was not incidental to navigation holding that the worsening test was met where a fateful error of a coast guard message center lulled a wouldbe rescuer into believing a fishing vessel was safe holding that jurisdictional requirements were met because the flag nation consented to the enforcement of the mdlea over the foreign vessel holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met holding that professional rescuer assumes the inherently risky nature of the employment