Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill adds a federal statute creating a uniform baseline of civil immunity for persons who use, own, or manage automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in perceived medical emergencies. It grants immunity to lay users, premises owners/lessees/managers, and AED owner-acquirers (unless owner-acquirers fail to maintain the AED per manufacturer guidance), with exceptions for willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, certain acts by licensed health professionals, and certain healthcare entities.
Support shared on saving lives; differ on strength of federal preemption.
Single-purpose, low-cost public-safety bill with bipartisan appeal; limited controversy expected in lower chamber.
This bill adds a federal statute creating a uniform baseline of civil immunity for persons who use, own, or manage automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in perceived medical emergencies.
It grants immunity to lay users, premises owners/lessees/managers, and AED owner-acquirers (unless owner-acquirers fail to maintain the AED per manufacturer guidance), with exceptions for willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, certain acts by licensed health professionals, and certain healthcare entities.
The statute preempts State law to the extent a State would permit liability where this federal immunity applies, clarifies definitions (e.g., perceived medical emergency, AED, cautionary signage), and states the immunity applies regardless of signage, registration, training, or supervision.
Narrow, non‑fiscal public‑health measure with limited ideological salience historically able to pass, though preemption and plaintiff‑bar objections create some risk.
How solid the drafting looks.
Support shared on saving lives; differ on strength of federal preemption.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support shared on saving lives; differ on strength of federal preemption.
Generally supportive of measures that increase life-saving AED deployment, but cautious about broad federal preemption and reduced accountability.
Likely to praise protections for lay rescuers while seeking stronger safeguards for victims and equitable AED placement.
Concerned about insufficient reporting, oversight, and potential erosion of state tort remedies for injured parties.
Favors the bill's national uniformity and clearer liability rules, seeing practical benefits for public health and businesses.
Worries focus on federal preemption of state tort law, ambiguity about maintenance enforcement, and potential unintended legal gaps.
Would favor technical fixes, data collection, and sunset or review provisions.
Likely supportive because the bill reduces liability risk and encourages private deployment of life-saving AEDs.
Views federal baseline immunity as beneficial to businesses and citizens acting in emergencies.
Some conservatives may object to federal preemption over state tort law, but many will prefer a uniform rule to reduce multistate legal risk.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, non‑fiscal public‑health measure with limited ideological salience historically able to pass, though preemption and plaintiff‑bar objections create some risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support shared on saving lives; differ on strength of federal preemption.
Narrow, non‑fiscal public‑health measure with limited ideological salience historically able to pass, though preemption and plaintiff‑bar o…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.