AB 369 adds Civil Code section 1714.27 to excuse persons who are not licensed to administer anti‑seizure rescue medication from civil, criminal, and professional liability when they give that medication at the scene of an emergency — provided they act in good faith, are not compensated, and are not grossly negligent or engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. The text explicitly preserves the Seizure Safe Schools Act and mirrors existing immunity for lay administration of opioid antagonists.
This is a targeted Good Samaritan–style expansion meant to lower legal risk for bystanders, family members, and other unlicensed responders who intervene during seizures. For compliance officers, employers, and insurers, the statute shifts the legal calculus for post‑event liability and raises questions about training, paid caregivers, and how courts will interpret “gross negligence” in this context.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a statutory immunity in Civil Code §1714.27 that shields otherwise unlicensed persons from civil action, criminal prosecution, or professional review when they administer anti‑seizure rescue medication at an emergency scene, as long as they act in good faith, without compensation, and are not grossly negligent or willfully/wantonly misconducting. It applies broadly “notwithstanding any other law,” with an express carve‑out preserving the Seizure Safe Schools Act.
Who It Affects
Lay bystanders, family members, and other unlicensed people who might administer rescue medication during a seizure, plus employers and public venues where seizures occur. It does not expand the scope of licensed medical professionals and excludes instances covered by the Seizure Safe Schools Act.
Why It Matters
The statute reduces a legal barrier that can discourage lifesaving bystander intervention and aligns seizure response with existing lay‑responder immunity for opioid overdoses. It also creates open questions about training expectations, paid caregivers, and how courts will apply the gross‑negligence filter.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 369 creates a focused immunity rule for everyday responders to seizures. The new Civil Code section protects people who are not otherwise licensed to give anti‑seizure rescue medication when they do so at the scene of an emergency, but only if they act in good faith, without pay, and avoid conduct that is grossly negligent or willfully and wantonly wrongful.
The legislature framed the protection broadly by saying it applies “notwithstanding any other law,” while explicitly leaving intact the Seizure Safe Schools Act that already governs trained volunteers in schools.
The bill does not require training, prescribe which medications qualify as “anti‑seizure rescue medication,” or change professional licensure rules. That means an ordinary bystander could be shielded from liability even if they have no formal instruction, while licensed practitioners remain subject to their existing professional standards.
The “not for compensation” limitation also means paid caregivers and employees will need careful legal review: a home health aide or a paid school staffer may fall outside the immunity if their work is compensated.Practically, the law is intended to encourage immediate intervention during seizures by reducing the threat of civil suits or criminal charges against unlicensed rescuers. However, because the immunity is lost for gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct, courts will be asked to draw the line between a reasonable lay attempt to help and conduct that is so careless it removes the shield.
Organizations that host the public — employers, venue operators, and event planners — should reassess policies on seizure response, first‑aid supplies, and whether to provide training or standing delegations to staff, because the statute lowers legal risk but does not remove clinical risk or the need for prudent protocols.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 369 adds California Civil Code §1714.27, creating a statutory immunity for unlicensed persons who administer anti‑seizure rescue medication at the scene of an emergency.
The immunity applies “notwithstanding any other law” but explicitly preserves the Seizure Safe Schools Act; it is therefore aimed at non‑school, general‑public settings.
To qualify, the responder must act in good faith, not receive compensation for the administration, and avoid gross negligence or willful/wanton misconduct.
The bill contains no statutory definition of “anti‑seizure rescue medication,” and it does not require training, certification, or documentation by the person administering the drug.
Licensed medical professionals are not granted new scope‑of‑practice privileges; the statute operates as an affirmative defense for unlicensed responders rather than expanding clinical authority.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes immunity for unlicensed administrators of anti‑seizure medication
This clause creates the core rule: a person who is not otherwise licensed to administer anti‑seizure rescue medication is excused from civil, criminal, and professional liability when they administer that medication at the scene of an emergency, subject to the other conditions the statute sets. Practically, this is an affirmative statutory protection intended to be raised as a defense against lawsuits or prosecutions arising from lay administration.
Conditions that limit the immunity
The statute conditions immunity on three elements: the responder must act in good faith, must not be compensated for administering the medication, and must not act with gross negligence or engage in willful or wanton misconduct. Those elements define the statute’s safe harbor but also create litigable standards: good faith and gross negligence are fact‑intensive inquiries courts will need to apply to seizure scenarios.
Broad preemption language with a school‑law carve‑out
The bill states the immunity applies notwithstanding any other law — a formulation that limits contrary statutory or regulatory obstacles — but immediately excepts the Seizure Safe Schools Act. That preserves the separate, training‑based regime for school volunteers while making the new immunity the default in non‑school settings. The cross‑reference also signals legislative intent to keep school‑based delegation rules distinct.
No training, definitions, or dosing guidance — practical consequences
The text omits definitions of “anti‑seizure rescue medication,” dosing or route‑of‑administration guidance, and any training or documentation requirement for rescuers. That leaves public entities and employers to decide whether to institute their own training or policies; it also makes it likely that disputes over what drugs and administration methods are covered will be litigated, and that courts will address whether administration without training meets the good‑faith threshold.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People experiencing seizures — they may receive quicker, potentially lifesaving medication from bystanders who would otherwise hesitate because of liability concerns.
- Bystanders, family members, and friends — the statute reduces personal exposure to civil or criminal liability for immediate, unpaid assistance.
- Public venue operators and employers — fewer liability claims against individual employees or patrons who render emergency help can reduce organizational legal risk and potential interruption to operations.
- Epilepsy and seizure‑disorder advocacy groups — the law removes a documented barrier to intervention and strengthens public reassurance campaigns that encourage helping behavior.
Who Bears the Cost
- Paid caregivers and compensated staff (including some home health workers and paid school employees) — the law’s “not for compensation” requirement may exclude them from immunity, increasing their exposure unless employers provide separate protections or training.
- Courts and litigants — the bill shifts disputes into fact‑heavy determinations about good faith and gross negligence, likely producing litigation to clarify standards and increasing judicial workload in early years.
- Insurers and employers who elect to provide training — organizations that choose to mitigate clinical risk through training or stock rescue medication will incur program and supply costs rather than relying solely on the statute.
- Regulatory bodies and licensing boards — the interplay between this immunity and professional‑scope statutes could trigger conflicts that regulators must interpret, investigate, or litigate.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the statute reduces legal barriers to immediate, potentially lifesaving bystander administration of seizure medication, but it does so without training requirements or clear definitions — improving timely access to care while increasing the risk that untrained interventions will cause harm or generate contested litigation over what counts as gross negligence.
The most significant implementation questions stem from what the bill leaves undefined. It does not define “anti‑seizure rescue medication,” impose a training requirement, or set standards for administration; those omissions will push contested issues into courts and local policy decisions.
A bystander’s act that courts later deem grossly negligent — for example, giving the wrong medication or an inappropriate dose — will lose statutory protection, but the line between a helpful lay response and gross negligence is fact‑dependent and uncertain.
The “not for compensation” limitation creates practical complexities. Many people who provide care (paid family caregivers, home health aides, or part‑time staff) occupy gray areas between volunteer and compensated worker.
Absent administrative guidance or employer policy changes, those individuals may be unintentionally excluded from protection, reducing the statute’s public‑health reach. Finally, the bill’s “notwithstanding any other law” phrasing is broad and may collide with professional licensing rules or institutional policies; courts will have to reconcile the statute with existing scope‑of‑practice and delegation frameworks, which could produce uneven outcomes across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.