Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P14 docx

“if I hadn’t known Goldwater, I’d have voted
against the s.o.b. myself.”
Goldwater was defeated by Johnson in a
landslide, carrying only Arizona and five south-
ern states. He was unapologetic about his
“extremism” speech, saying, “Protecting freedom
is what this country has been about. We’ll go to
any extent to protect it. I know people were
thinking ‘nuclear’ when I said [extremism,]
but I think it had to be said, and I never
lost any sleep over it.” The final irony, of course,
is that Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, and
it dragged on until 1973. According to Gold-
water, Johnson’s Vietnam policy cost the country
far more money and lives than if Goldwater, the
supposed warmonger, had been elected.
After his loss to Johnson, Goldwater returned
to Arizona and private life. Although his defeat
was stunning, and he was treated like a pariah by
other Republicans, he was undaunted. “Politics
has never been the making or breaking point of
my life,” he said. “Iworkedhardtomake
Arizona a better state and my country a better
country. If I failed, I’ve taken the criticism.” He
returned to politics in 1968 when he easily won
the Senate seat vacated by retiring Democrat Carl
Hayden. As an older and somewhat more
moderate statesman, he relished his positions as
chair of the
ARMED SERVICES Committee, the
Intelligence Committee, the Communications

Subcommittee, and the Indian Affairs Commit-
tee. He continued to work against big govern-
ment and in favor of a free market economy.
Summing up his opposition to federal control,
he said, “All the great civilizations fell when
people lost their initiative because government
moved in to do things for them.”
Goldwater served in the Senate for almost
20 additional years and left with his reputation
and his convictions intact. “I was luckier than
hell—politics is mostly luck—and I made a lot of
friends,” he said. “It would be hard for me to
name an enemy in Congress. People disagreed
with me violently, but we remained very good
friends.” In addition to a loyal conservative
following, Goldwater’s friends included liberal
Democrats Morris Udall, Daniel Inouye,
EDWARD
M
. KENNEDY,WalterF.Mondale,andHUBERT H.
HUMPHREY. One conservative Goldwater removed
from his list of friends was
RICHARD M. NIXON.
Unable to accept Nixon’s failings or forgive his
deceptions during the
WATERGATE crisis, Gold-
water called the scandal “one of the saddest
moments of my life. For 20 years or so, he and
I worked hand in glove all over this land—not
to help Nixon, not to help Goldwater, but to

help the Republican Party and our country. But
I was slow to see the real Nixon.”
Goldwater retired from the Senate when his
term ended in 1987 and returned to his home in
Paradise Valley, Arizona, overlooki ng Phoenix.
He remained active, although slowed somewhat
by arthritis. In the 1990s he took up an unlikely
new cause: gay rights. “The big thing is to
make this country quit discriminating
against people just because they’re gay,” he
asserted. “You don’t have to agree with it, but
they have a constitutional right to be gay. And
that’s what brings me into it.” Always a strict
constructionist when it came to the Constitu-
tion, Goldwater felt that his defense of gay rights
was consistent with his lifelon g devotion to
individual freedom. Then governor of Oregon
Barbara Roberts said that because peop le do not
expect someone like Goldwater to speak up for
gay rights, they look at the issue in a new light
when he does. “He causes people to focus on
the real issue,” she said. “Should the country
that celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness allow
DISCRIMINATION for a group of
Americans based on sexual preference?” Gold-
water’s position on gay rights put the former
conservative standard-bearer squarely in con-
flict with religious conservatives w ho opposed
any effort to outlaw discrimination against

homosexuals.
Goldwater died at the age of 89 on May 29,
1998. He was a member of many organizations,
including the Royal Photographic Society, the
American Association of Indian Affairs, and the
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS. He was honorary
cochairman of Americans against Discrimina-
tion, a lobbying effort aimed at securing gay
rights. He and his second wife, Susan Gold-
water, lived in Paradise Valley, Arizona, at the
time of his death.
FURTHER READINGS
Goldwater, Barry M. 1979. With No Apologies. New York:
Morrow.
Goldwater, Barry M., with Jack Casserly. 1988. Goldwater.
New York: Doubleday.
Perlstein, Rick. 2009. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and
the Unmaking of the American Consensus. Washington,
D.C.: Nation.
CROSS REFERENCE
Gay and Lesbian Rights.
A GOVERNMENT
THAT IS BIG ENOUGH
TO GIVE YOU ALL YOU
WANT IS BIG ENOUGH
TO TAKE IT ALL
AWAY
.
—BARRY GOLDWATER
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

118 GOLDWATER, BARRY MORRIS
v
GOMPERS, SAMUEL
Samuel Gompers, a founding member and
longtime president of the American Federation
of Labor (AFL), was instrumental in broadening
the goals of the labor movement in the United
States. He used his gifts as an organizer and
speaker to consolidate numerous unions into
one umbrella organization that lobbied success-
fully for improved working conditions for all
tradesmen.
The son of Dutch immigrants, Gompers was
born in London on January 26, 1850. He
attended school briefly but began working at
age 10. Initially apprenticed to a shoemaker, he
chose instead to become a cigarmaker like his
father. The family moved to New York in 1863,
and within a year Gompers had joined the Cigar
Makers’ National Union.
At around this time many trades were
beginning to form unions, but their power
was limited because as small, individual groups
they had little clout. By the 1880s, leaders of the
various unions decided that by uniting in
common cause they would make for a stronger
political force. Late in 1881, several unions
joined together to form the Federation of
Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU).
Gompers, who had proven himself an able

leader in the cigarmakers’ union, was elected an
officer of FOTLU.
FOTLU was a first step for organizing
unions but it was too loosely connected to have
any real influence. In 1886 FOTLU was
restructured into the American Federation of
Labor (AFL), and Gompers was elected presi-
dent. Except for a one-year hiatus in 1895,
Gompers remained AFL president for the rest of
his life.
As AFL president, Gompers steered the
organization toward practical goals. He was
interested in securing living wages for union
members, an eight-hour work day, comprehen-
sive
CHILD LABOR LAWS, equal pay for women and
men, and compulsory school attendance for
children. To that end, he lobbied tirelessly for
these and other improvements for working men
and women.
Gompers steered clear of political issues
(although in 1899 the AFL did endorse women’s
suffrage). Many left-wing labor leaders thought
that Gompers was too timid and ineffective,
too tied to the mainstream. Anarchist
EMMA
Samuel Gompers.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Samuel Gompers 1850–1924
▼▼

▼▼
18501850
19251925
19001900
18751875
◆
❖
◆
❖
◆
◆
1914–18
World War I
1924 Died,
San Antonio, Tex.
1896–1924
President of American
Federation of Labor
1886–94
President of American
Federation of Labor
1917 Chaired
Council
of National
Defense
advisory
committee
1919 Helped create
International Labor
Organization (ILO) at

Treaty of Versailles
negotiations
1890 Sherman
Anti-Trust Act
signed into law
1876 Granger
cases decided
1861–65
Civil War
1850 Born,
London, England
I WONDER WHETHER
ANY OF US CAN
IMAGINE WHAT
WOULD BE THE
ACTUAL CONDITION
OF THE WORKING
PEOPLE OF OUR
COUNTRY TODAY
WITHOUT THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS TO
PROTECT THEM
.
—SAMUEL GOMPERS
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
GOMPERS, SAMUEL 119
GOLDMAN wrote that the AFL had not “grasped
the social abyss which separates labor from its
masters, an abyss which can never be bridged by
the struggle for mere material gains.” But under

Gompers’s leadership, labor made significant
sustainable gains at the state and federal level.
Workers’ compensation laws were enacted to
assist those injured on the job; wages were
raised; and the eight-hour day became law for a
growing number of workers (including federal
employees in 1912). In 1913, the federal
government created the
LABOR DEPARTMENT,
and, in 1914, it passed the Clayton Antitrust
Act, which protected union members from
prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
That same year, industrialist Henry Ford
initiated the eight-hour workday (at $5 per
day) at his automobile plant.
When the United States entered
WORLD WAR I
in 1917, Gompers chaired an advisory commit-
tee of the Council of National Defense, which
was created to coordinate industry and
resources in wartime, and called on employers
and employees to stand united and not take
advantage of the war to make unreasonable
demands. He traveled to Europe during the war
to examine labor conditions, and after the war,
in 1919, he attended the negotiations for the
TREATY OF VERSAILLES, where he was instrumental
in the creation of the International Labor
Organization (ILO). He attended the Congress
of the Pan-American federation of Labor in

Mexico City in December 1924. He collapsed on
December 8 and was brought to San Antonio,
Texas, where he died on December 13.
FURTHER READINGS
Goldman, Emma. 1925. “Samuel Gompers.” In The Road to
Freedom. The Emma Goldman Papers, Vol. 1, March.
Available online at />Goldman/Writings/Essays/gompers.html; http://www.
sunsite.berkeley.edu (accessed July 27, 2009).
Kaufman, Stuart Bruce. 1973. Samuel Gompers and the
Origins of the American Federation of Labor. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Mandel, Bernard. 1980. Samuel Gompers: A Biography.
Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch.
CROSS REFERENCES
Craft Union; Industrial Union; Labor Union; Trade Union.
v
GONZALES, ALBERTO R.
Alberto R. Gonzales served as U.S. attorney general
from 2005 to 2007.
GEORGE W. BUSH tapped
Gonzales to the position to succeed
JOHN
ASHCROFT
, and upon his confirmation, Gonzales
became the first Hispanic American to serve as
U.S. attorney general. Several controversies
arose during Gonzales’s tenure, leading to his
resignation on September 17, 2007.
Born August 4, 1955, in San Antonio, Texas,
Gonzales grew up in Houston. Neither of

his parents finished elementary school, and
Gonzales’s father died from a work accident in
1982. After graduating from high school,
Gonzales joined the U.S. Air Force. While he
was stationed in Alaska, two Air Force Academy
graduates told him he should seek an appoint-
ment to the academy. Gonzales ente red the
academy, but soon found out that his vision was
no longer good enough to become a pilot. As a
result, he turned his attention to a career in law
and applied to Rice University, from which he
graduated in 1979. Gonzales was the first in his
family to attend college, but he did not stop there.
Upon graduation, he went on to Harvard Law
School. He then joined the firm of Vinson and
Elkins and practiced general corporate business
law with the firm for the next thirteen years.
In 1990 Gonzales gained the attention of
Bush’s father, president
GEORGE H. W. BUSH,
but Gonzales declined a job offer at the White
House to remain in private practice and focus
on making partner at the law firm. However,
when the younger Bush offered him the
opportunity to be legal counsel for the governor
five years later, Gonzales accepted. Over the
next five years, Bush showed strong support for
Gonzales, eventually appointing him as Texas
SECRETARY OF STATE and then as a justice on the
Texas Supreme Court. There was little doubt

that Gonzales had become part of Bush’s
innermost circle when Bush called on Gonzales
again, in 2000, to serve as the White House
counsel. Traditionally, the counsel to the White
House garners little media attention unless
there is a scandal. As described by Daniel
Klaidman and Tamara Lipper in Newsweek, “the
president’s lawyer typically offers discreet advice
on legislation and helps the White House staff
steer clear of ethical land mines.”
Gonzales came to public attention with
his efforts to prevent details of Vice President
Dick Cheney’s energy commission from being
revealed. More notoriously, his memo on the
torture of prisoners taken in the so-called war
on terror, which described the Geneva Con-
ventions as “quaint” and “obsolete,” raised
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
120 GONZALES, ALBERTO R.
strong opposition from the left, whose members
felt that such comments were in part responsi-
ble for the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq.
Gonzales also cleared a
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
memo that stated that the president was not
bound by laws against torture when incarcerat-
ing people described as “enemy combatants.”
After the resignation of John Ashcroft
following Bush’s 2004 election victory, Bush
nominated Gonzales in November 2004 to take

the position of attorney general. Senate Demo-
crats on the Judiciary Committee challenged his
confirmation and unanimously voted against
his nomination. However, the full Senate
confirmed his nomination by a vote of 60-36.
At the time of his appointment, Gonzales was
seen as a more moderate appointment than
Ashcroft, as Gonzales was not opposed to
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION or ABORTION , two subjects of
particular Republican objection.
In 2005 and 2006, Gonzales led an eventu-
ally successful effort to advocate the reauthori-
zation of the USA PATRIOT Act. However, his
position with regard to civil rights in relation
to national security continued to cause a stir.
The New York Times in 2005 reported that
Bush had authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless searches
on individuals within the United States.
Gonzales responded to the report by noting
that the program was supported by the broad
war powers given to Bush following the 2001
terrorist attacks. In July 2006 Gonzales testified
before the Senate that Bush had blocked the
Justice Department from investigating the spy-
ing program. Gonzales was one of the govern-
ment officials who had authority to review the
program every 45 days. Facing pressure from
Congress, Gonzales in 2007 announced that the
NSA warrantless eavesdropping program woul d

be reviewed by a secret national intelligence
court.
In addition to the controversy surrounding
Gonzales’ handling of the eavesdropping pro-
gram, Gonzales became embroiled in a dispute
over the sudden dismissal of several U.S.
attorneys. He reportedly met in November
2006 to discuss the dismissal of eight prosec u-
tors in a plan approved by the White House
about a week later. On December 7, 2006, the
Justice Department dismissed these eight attor-
neys, providing no reason for the firings.
Alberto Gonzales.
AP IMAGES
▼▼
▼▼
❖
◆◆
◆ ◆◆◆
2000
1975
1955
◆
Alberto R. Gonzales 1955–
1955 Born,
San Antonio, Texas
1973–75
Served in
the U.S.
Air Force

1982 Graduated
from Harvard
Law School
1995–97 Served as general
counsel for then-Governor
George W. Bush
1997–99 Served as
Texas Secretary of State
1999 Appointed to Supreme Court of
Texas; named Latino Lawyer of the Year
by the Hispanic National Bar Association
2001 Left Court to serve as White House counsel for then-President George W. Bush
2003 Received President’s Award from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
1961–73 Vietnam War 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks;
PATRIOT Act signed into law
2005 Appointed first Hispanic attorney
general of the United States
2007 Resigned as
attorney general
amid controversy
regarding government
eavesdropping
program
2009 Joined
Texas Tech
University as
diversity
recruiter
◆
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION

GONZALES, ALBERTO R. 121
Reports later showed that the majority of those
who were dismissed were given favorable
evaluations during the periods of time that they
held their positions. As the controversy contin-
ued to heat up, Deputy Attorney General Paul
McNulty testified that the attorneys were
dismissed due to poor performance rather than
political reasons.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) led an
investigation into the attorneys’ firings. He
criticized the Justice Department for what he
concluded were politically motivated decisions.
Calls for Gonzales’s resignation became more
prevalent in March 2007. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
the top Republican on the
SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE
,openlyquestionedwhetherGonzales’s
tenure as attorney general had run its course.
Another Republican, Senator John Sununu
(R-NH), openly called for Gonzales’s resignation.
Gonzales responded to allegations about the
dismissal of the attorneys by noting that though
he should be held accountable, he was not
involved with seeing memos or with other
discussions about the proposed firings. About
two months later, evidence surfaced that
Gonzales indeed saw memos about the firings
and had consulted with aides prior to the

dismissals. Moreover, former Deputy Attorney
General James Comey testified that in 2004
Gonzalez had pressured then attorney general
Ashcroft to approve the eavesdropping pro-
gram. This occurred while Ashcroft was hospi-
talized in an intensive-care unit.
Congressional Democrats stepped up
their efforts to pressure Gonzales to resign.
House and Senate members i ntroduced no-
confidence votes in both chambers of Con-
gress. Nonetheless, Bush continued to express
support for Gonzales. Amid accusations of
PERJURY for his earlier testimony, however,
Gonzales finally gave in and announced his
resignation on August 27, 2007 . Bush claimed
that Gonzales’s name had been “dragged
through the mud for political r easons,” but
even some Republican lawmakers said that the
time for the resignation had come.
Gonzales gave numerous speeches during
the two years following his resignation, but he
reportedly had difficulty finding a position at a
law firm. In July 2009 Texas Tech University
announced that it had hired Gonzales to serve
as diversity recruiter. He was also scheduled to
teach a political science course.
FURTHER READINGS
Johnston, David. 2007. “Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in
Evaluations.” New York Times. February 25.
Myers, Steven Lee, and Philip Shenon. 2007. “Embattled

Attorney General Resigns.” New York Times. August 27.
GOOD BEHAVIOR
Orderly and lawful action; conduct that is deemed
proper for a peaceful and law-abiding indivi dual.
The definition of good behavior depends
upon how the phrase is used. For example,
what constitutes good behavior for an elected
public officer may be quite different from that
expected of a prisoner who wants to have his or
her sentence reduced or to earn privileges.
The
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
provides that federal judges shall hold their
offices during good behavior, which means that
they cannot be discharged but can be impeached
for misconduct.
GOOD CAUSE
Legally adequate or substantial grounds or reason
to take a certain action.
The term good cause is a relative one and is
dependent upon the circumstances of each
individual case. For example, a party in a legal
action who wants to do something after a
particular
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS has expired must
show good cause, or justification for needing
additional time. A serious illness or accident
might, for example, constitute good cause.
An employee is said to be discharged for good
cause if the reasons f or the termination are work

related. However, if the employer simply did
not like the employee’s personality, this would
not ordinarily constitute good cause, unless the
employee held a position, such as a salesperson,
for which a likable personality was required.
GOOD FAITH
Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with
others.
Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive
term that encompasses a sincere belief or
MOTIVE
without any MALICE or the desire to DEFRAUD
others. It derives from the translation of the
Latin term
BONA FIDE, and courts use the two
terms interchangeably.
The term good faith is used in many areas of
the law but has special significance in
COMMER-
CIAL LAW
. A good faith purchaser for value is
YOU DO THE BEST
YOU CAN
, LOOKING
AT PRECEDENT
, IN
TRYING TO
ANTICIPATE WHERE
THE
SUPREME

COURT IS GOING TO
DRAW THE BALANCE
BETWEEN THE
PROTECTION OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND
PROTECTING THE
NATIONAL SECURITY
,
AND IN SOME CASES
WE GUESSED WRONG
.
—ALBERTO GONZALES
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
122 GOOD BEHAVIOR
protected by the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE,
which every state has adopted. Under sections
1-201(9) and 2-403 of the code, a merchant
may keep possession of goods that were bought
from a seller who did not have title to the goods,
if the merchant can show he or she was a good
faith purchaser for value. To meet this test, the
person must be a merchant, must have
demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the
transaction concerned, and must have observed
reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing
in the trade. A buyer would likely meet these
requirements if the purchase proceeded in the
ordinary course of business. If, on the other
hand, the purchase took place under unusual or
suspicious circumstances, a court might con-

clude that the buyer lacked good faith.
Where a nonmerchant purchases property
that the seller lacks
LEGAL TITLE to convey, the
issue of good faith is known both as the
INNOCENT PURCHASER doctrine and as the bona
fide purchaser doctrine. If the purchaser
acquires the property by an honest contract or
agreement and without knowledge of any defect
in the title of the seller, or means of knowledge
sufficient to charge the buyer with such
knowledge, the purchaser is deemed innocent.
In both commercial and noncommercial
law, persons who in good faith pay a
FRAUDULENT
seller VALUABLE CONSIDERATION for property are
protected from another person who claims legal
title to the property. If a court establishes the
purchaser’s good faith defense, the person who
claims title has recourse only against the
fraudulent seller. Strong
PUBLIC POLICY is behind
the good faith defense. Good faith doctrines
enhance the flow of goods in commerce, as
under them, buyers are not required, in the
ordinary course of business, to go to extraordi-
nary efforts to determine whether sellers
actually have good title. A purchaser can move
quickly to close a deal with the knowledge that a
fraudulent seller and a legitimate titleholder will

have to sort the issue out in court. Of course,
the purchaser will be required to demonstrate to
the court evidence of good faith.
Good faith is also central to the
COMMERCIAL
PAPER
(checks, drafts, promissory notes, certifi-
cates of deposit) concept of a
HOLDER IN DUE
COURSE
. A holder is a person who takes an
instrument, such as a check, subject to the
reasonable belief that it will be paid and that
there are no legal reasons why payment will not
occur. If the holder has taken the check for
value and in good faith believes the check to
be good, she or he is a holder in due course,
with sole right to recover paymen t. If, on the
other hand, the holder accepts a check that has
been dishonored (stamped with terms such
as “insufficient funds,”“account closed,” and
“payment stopped”), she or he has knowledge
that something is wrong with the check and
therefore cannot
ALLEGE the check was accepted
in the good faith belief that it was valid.
In
LABOR LAW, the National Labor Relations
Act of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.)
mandates good faith bargaining by every union

and employer in order to reach agreement. In
corporate law, the
BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE is
based on good faith. This principle makes
officers, directors, managers, and other agents
of a corporation immune from liability to the
corporation for losses incurred in corporate
transactions that are within their authority and
power to make, when sufficient evidence
demonstrates that those transactions were made
in good faith. As in commercial law, the use of
good faith in this case enhances corporate
business practices, as agents of a corporation
are free to act quickly, decisively, and some-
times wrongly to advance the interests of the
corporation. Good faith insulates corporate
officers from disgruntled shareholders.
FURTHER READINGS
Bristow, David I., and Reva Seth. 2000–2001. “Good Faith in
Negotiations.” Dispute Resolution Journal 55 (November-
January). Available online at />articles/mi_qa3923/is_200011/ai_n8963898/; website home
page: (accessed July 2 7, 2009).
Carter, Roger L. 2002. “Oh, Ye of Little (Good) Faith:
Questions, Concerns and Commentary on Efforts to
Regulate Participant Conduct in Mediations.” Journal of
Dispute Resolution 2002 (fall).
Compliance News. Available online at http://www.
compliancenews.com/ (accessed September 4, 2009).
GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE
A principle of tort law that provides that a person

who sees another individual in imminent and
serious danger or peril cannot be charged with
negligence if that first person attempts to aid or
rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is
not made recklessly.
The Good Samaritan doctrine is used by
rescuers to avoid civil
LIABILITY for injuries
arising from their
NEGLIGENCE. Its purpose is to
encourage emergency assistance by removing
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE 123
the threat of liability for damage done by the
assistance. However, the assistance must be
reasonable; a rescuer cannot benefit from the
Good Samaritan doctrine if the assistance is
reckless or grossly negligent.
Three key elements support a successful
invocation of the Good Samaritan doctrine:
(1) the care rendered was performed as the result
of the emergency, (2) the initial emergency or
injury was not caused by the person invoking the
defense, and (3) the emergency care was not
given in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.
Assume that a person has slipped on ice
and broken a vertebra. The victim is uncon-
scious, the accident has occurred in a d esolate
area, and the weather is dangerously cold. A
passerby finds the injured person and moves

the person to warmth and safety, but in the
process aggravates the spinal injury. In a civil
suit by the victim seeking damages for the
additional injury, the passerby may succes sfully
defeat the claims un der the Good Samaritan
doctrine.
The Good Samaritan doctrine is also used as
a defense by persons who act to prevent or
contain property damage. Assume that a passer-
by notices a fire has started just outside a cabin in
the wilderness. If the passerby breaks into the
cabin to look for a fire extinguisher, the passerby
will not be liable for damage resulting from the
forced entry. However, if the passerby runs down
the cabin with a bulldozer to extinguish the fire,
this will probably be considered grossly negligent
or reckless, and the Good Samaritan doctrine
will not provide protection from a civil suit for
damages to the cabin.
The line separating negligence from
GROSS
NEGLIGENCE
or RECKLESSNESS is often thin. Hard-
ingham v. United Counseling Service of Benning-
ton County, 672 A. 2d 480 (Vt. 1995), illustrates
the negligent acts that the Good Samaritan
doctrine protects. In this case, the
PLAINTIFF,
David Hardingham, sued United Counseling
Service (UCS) when he became blind after

drinking windshield wiper fluid. Hardingham, a
recovering alcoholic, was employed by UCS as an
emergency services counselor. When Harding-
ham began drinking again, employees of UCS
went to his apartment and discovered him in an
inebriated condition. During their visit, they saw
Hardingham drink windshield wiper fluid. They
called the police, who took Hardingham to a
hospital. At the hospital, none of the UCS
workers informed medical authorities that Hard-
ingham had drunk the dangerous fluid. Doctors
did not learn until the next day that Hardingham
had overdosed on methanol, a component of
windshield wiper fluid, and Hardingham even-
tually lost his sight.
Hardingham never got a chance to present
his case to a jury. The Chittenden Superior
Court granted
SUMMARY JUDGMENT to UCS,
holding that there was insufficient evidence to
support an
ALLEGATION of gross negligence by the
organization. The Supreme Court of Vermont
affirmed this decision. According to the court,
the actions of the defendants “probably saved
plaintiff’s life.” Although the defendants may
have been negligent in failing to disclose that
Hardingham had swallowed enough methanol
to threaten his life, “no
REASONABLE PERSON could

conclude that defendants showed indifference
to plaintiff or failed to exercise even a slight
degree of care.”
Justice John Dooley dissented, arguing
that the case presented a
QUESTION OF FACT for
a jury to decide. The defendants “failed to tell
the emergency room physician the most signifi-
cant fact that wasn’t obvious from plaintiff’s
condition—that plaintiff had consumed wind-
shield wiper fluid.” Dooley lamented that “the
greatest difficulty plaintiff faces in this case is to
persuade us to accept that ‘good samaritans’
should ever be liable.”
Section 324 of the Second Restatement of
Torts describes the Good Samaritan doctrine in
an inverse fashion. According to section 324, a
person is subject to liability for physical harm
resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable
care if the failure increases the risk of harm, if
the rescuer has a duty to render care, or if others
are relying on the rescuer.
Many states are content to follow the Good
Samaritan doctrine through their
COMMON LAW
or through similar previous cases. Some states
have general statutes mandating the doctrine.
Utah, for example, has a Good Samaritan act,
which provides in part that
[a] person who renders emergency care at or

near the scene of, or during an emergency,
gratuitously and in
GOOD FAITH, is not liable
for any civil damages or penalties as a result
of any act or omission by the person
rendering the emergency care, unless the
person is grossly negligent or caused the
emergency. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-22).
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
124 GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE
Some states have enacted statutes that
protect specific emergency care or assistance.
Indiana, for example, protects the em ergency
care of veterinarians (Ind. Code § 15-5-1.1-31).
Alabama provides
IMMUNITY to those who assist
or advise in the mitigation of the effects of the
discharge of haz ardous materials (Ala. Code §
6-5-332.1). Some states also provide protection
to those participating in the cleanup of oil spills.
In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act
(Pub. L. No. 101-380, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701–
2761 [1994]), which gave immunity from
liability to persons who participate in oil
cleanup efforts. Like any Good Samaritan law,
the statute does not protect a person who is
grossly negligent or reckless.
FURTHER READINGS
Crawley, Annette Teichert. 1993. “Environmental Auditing
and the ‘Good Samaritan’ Doctrine: Implications for

Parent Corporations.” Georgia Law Review 28 (fall).
Landes, William M., and Richard A. Posner. 2001.
“Harmless Error.” Journal of Legal Studies 30 (January).
Available online at />files/101.WML_.Harmless.pdf; website home page:
(accessed July 27, 2009).
White, Christopher H. 2002. “No Good Deed Goes
Unpunished: The Case for Reform of the Rescue
Doctrine.” Northwestern Univ. Law Review 97 (fall).
GOOD TIME
The amount of time deducted from time to be
served in prison on a given sentence, at some point
after the prisoner’s admission to prison, contingent
upon good behavior or awarded automatically by
the application of a statute or regulation. Good
time can be forfeited for misbehavior. In some
jurisdictions, prisoners may not earn good time
during their first year of their sentence.
GOOD WILL
The favorable reputation and clientele of an
established and well-run business.
The value of good will is ordinarily deter-
mined as the amount a purchaser will pay for a
business beyond the monetary value of its
tangible property and money owed to it.
Good will is regarded as a prop erty interest
in and of itself, although it exists only in
connection with other property, such as the
name or location of the operation. Good will
exists even in a situation where the business is
not operating at a profit. Certain courts refuse

to recognize good will that arises out of the
personal qualities of the owner. For example, a
physician cannot sell good will when selling the
office building and other physical assets of his
or her practice, because the physician’s reputa-
tion is based solely upon personal professional
abilities.
A transfer of good will from one individual
to another can take place as a bequest in a will or
through a sale. Ordinarily, when an individual
sells the property to which good will is
connected, it is automatically transferred to the
buyer. However, the buyer and seller can alter
this arrangement or specify details in their sale
agreement. A former owner of a business has no
right to interfere with the subsequent owner’s
enjoyment of good will following a sale transfer-
ring good will, even in the event that the sales
contract does not specifically so indicate. In the
event that the purchaser wants to prevent the
seller from establishing a competing business in
the same vicinity, the purchaser must bargain for
such a provision in the contract. An agreement
not to compete, sometimes called
RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT
, differs from good will. However, an
individual who sells the good will of his or her
business is not permitted to solicit former clients
or customers or lead them to believe that he or

she is still running the same business.
GOODS
Items; chattels; things; any personal property.
Goods is a term of flexible context and
meaning and extends to all tangible items.
v
GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR.
He has been a reporte r, an environmentalist, a
congressman, and served as vice
PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES
, but Al Gore may go down in
history as the unsuccessful candidate in possibly
the most conteste d presidential race the United
States has ever seen. Having spent the majority
of his life in the political ring, Gore made two
unsuccessful bids for the presidency. The first
came in 1988, when he was a fledgling senator;
the second was in 2000, following two terms
as vice president under
BILL CLINTON.Inthe
protracted 2000 race, Gore won the popular
vote, but lost the electoral vote to
GEORGE W.
BUSH. He became the third candidate in history
to receive the greatest share of the popular vote,
but lose the presidency. In 2002 Gore an-
nounced that he would not try for the office a
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. 125

third time, claiming, “there are many other
exciting ways to serve.”
Gore was born in Washington, D.C., on
March 31, 1948. His father, Albert Gore Sr., at
the time served as a Democratic member of the
U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee.
The senior Gore was to serve in the House and
the Senate for nearly three decades. His mother
was Pauline LaFon Gore. She had the distinc-
tion of being one of the first women to gra duate
from the law school at Vanderbilt University.
Gore attended St. Alban’s Episcopal School
for Boys in Washington, D.C., where he was an
honor student and captain of the football team.
In 1969 he received a B.A. with honors in
government from Harvard University. He was
interested in becoming a writer, rather than
following his father’s footsteps as a politician.
After graduation he enlisted in the army,
although he opposed the intervention of the
United States in the
VIETNAM WAR.
While stationed in Vietnam, Gore served as
an army reporter. After Gore left the military
service in 1971, the Nashville Tennessean hired
him as an investigative reporter and, later, as an
editorial writer. In addition to his journalism
career, Gore was a home builder, a land
developer, and a livestock and tobacco farmer.
Gore married his college sweetheart, Mary

Elizabeth “Tipper” Aitcheson, in 1970. Tipper
Gore holds a B.A. degree from Boston Univer-
sity and an M.A. in psychology from George
Peabody College at Vanderbilt University. She is
actively involved in a number of issues,
including AIDS, education, and homelessness.
She has also has been a longtime advocate for
mental health, and gained national attention in
the 1980s through her efforts to influence the
record industry to rate and label obscene and
violent lyrics. She was cofounder of the Parents’
Music Resource Center, which monitors musi-
cal and video presentation s that glorify casual
sex and violence. The Gores have four children:
Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III.
Interested in
RELIGION and philosophy, Gore
enrolled in the Graduate School of Religion at
Vanderbilt University during the 1971–72
academic year. In 1974, he entered Vanderbilt’s
law school but left to enter elective office two
years later.
In 1976 Gore ran for a seat in the U.S.
House of Representatives. He won the primary
election against eight other candidates and went
on to win in the general election. He ran
successfully in the three following elections.
Gore claimed some early attention in 1980
when he was assigned to study nuclear arms as a
member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Al Gore.
AP IMAGES
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. 1948–
▼▼
▼▼
2000
1975
1950
❖
◆
1948 Born,
Washington, D.C.
1974–76 Postgraduate
studies at Vanderbilt
University Law School
1977–85
U.S.
Representative
from Tennessee
1985–93
U.S.
Senator from
Tennessee
1993–2000
Served as vice
president under
Bill Clinton
◆◆◆◆
2000 Unsuccessful run for president after losing controversial election to George W. Bush
2000 U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision

halted presidential vote recount in Florida
1961–73
Vietnam War
1950–53
Korean War
2005
Co-founded
CurrentTV
2006 An Inconvenient Truth released, later won Academy Award for Best Documentary
2007 Awarded Nobel Peace Prize for environmental work
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
126 GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR.
He researched and eventually published a
comprehensive manifesto on arms restructuring
for future security, which was published in the
February 1982 issue of Congressional Quarterly.
In 1984, Gore campaigned for a seat in the U.S.
Senate that had just become vacant. He won
that office with a large margin of votes.
While in Congress, Gore focused on several
issues, including health care and environmental
reform. He worked for nuclear
ARMS CONTROL
AND DISARMAMENT
, as well as other strategic
defense issues. He also stressed the potential of
new technologies, such as biotechnology and
computer development.
As the decade came to a close, Gore set his
sights on the race for the 198 8 presidential

election. Only 39 years old at the time, he ran
on traditional domestic Democratic views and
was tough on foreign policy issues. He failed,
however, to develop a national theme for his
campaign and was criticized for changing
positions on issues. Gore was successful in
gaining public support in the primaries during
the early spring and won more votes than any
other candidate in southern states. However, he
obtained only sm all percentages of votes in
other states and withdrew from the presidential
nomination campaigns in mid-April.
Two years later Gore won election to a
second term in the U.S. Senate. He chose not to
seek the presidency in 1992, citing family
concerns (his son Albert had been hit by an
automobile and was seriously injured). It was
during this time that Gore wrote the book Earth
in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,
which expressed his concern, ideas, and recom -
mendations on conservation and the global
environment. In the book he wrote about his
own personal and political experiences and
legislative actions on the environmental issue.
One of Gore’s statements in the book that sums
up his philosophy regarding the environment
and human interaction is, “We must make the
rescue of the environment the central organiz-
ing principle for civilization.”
In the summer of 1992, Bill Clinton selected

Gore as his vice presidential nominee. The choice
startled many people because it ended a long-
standing pattern of a candidate choosing a vice
presidential nominee to “balance the ticket.”
Both men were of the same age, region, and
reputation and moderate in political outlook.
Gore did balance Clinton’s strength, however, by
bringing to the ticket his experience in foreign
and defense policy, expertise in environmental
and new technology matters, and an image as an
unwavering family man.
Clinton and Gore won the election in 1992,
and Gore was inaugurated as the 45th vice
president on January 20, 1993. At the age of 44
years, he became one of the youngest people to
hold the position. Clinton and Gore were
reelected in 1996, running against Republicans
Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.
During his time as vice president, Gore
continued to stress environmental concerns. In
1997, the White House launched an effort to
start producing a report card on the health of
the nation’s ecosystems. This project was
carried out by an environmental think tank
and initiated by Gore.
That same year, however, Gore’s reputation
was somewhat tarnished when he was accused of
and admitted to making fund-raising telephone
calls from the White House during the 1996
presidential campaign. Gore held a press confer-

ence on March 3, 1997, to defend his actions,
saying there was nothing illegal about what he had
done, although he admitted it may not have been
a wise choice. Gore was also criticized for toasting
Li Peng, initiator of the Tiananmen Square
Massacre, during a trip to China. In September
1997 Buddhist nuns testified before the Senate
panel investigating the abuses of campaign fund-
raising. The nuns admitted that donors were
illegally reimbursed by their temple following a
fund-raiser attended by Gore, and that they had
destroyed or altered records to avoid embarras-
sing their temple. Some believe these incidents
further damaged Gore’sreputation.
Despite questions of impropriety, Gore
announced his candidacy for president in
1999. By early 2000 he had secured the majority
of Democratic dele gates for the 2000 elections.
Gore chose Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieber-
man as his running mate to face Texas governor
George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, former
secretary of defense. Although Bush took an
early lead in the polls, the Gore campaign closed
the gap. Gore sought not only to demonstrate
his compassion in a variety of speeches, but also
to distance hims elf from Clinton. As the
November 7 election approached, most obser-
vers predicted a deadlock.
During the afternoon of November 7, 2000,
it appeared as if Gore would win the election,

NO MATTER HOW
HARD THE LOSS
,
DEFEAT MIGHT SERVE
AS WELL AS VICTORY
TO SHAKE THE
SOUL AND LET THE
GLORY OUT
.
—AL GORE
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. 127