Posted By Michael Webb Unless our staff are qualified first aiders, we do not allow them to administer first aid, emergency or not. This applies to all our staff, be they office based or working in one of our elderly sheltered schemes. However, i have heard mentioned a 'Good Samaritan' rule, which prevents legal action being taken as a consequence of the treatment provided, should there be repercussions. Is anyone aware of this 'rule', if so could they give me further details......or, is it a myth?? Many thanks.

Posted By Andy Petrie If one of your 'non qualified' employees does not give first aid to an inured person, and that person subsequently dies or suffers a major injury then they (and yourself/company as they were working to your instructions) could be liabel to prosecution for not helping to save a life. Again the 'reasonable' rule comes in to play. This is one of those poisoned chalice questions, where your staff have a duty to help an injured person, but at the same time they have not to cause additional harm. There is no easy answer to this question but I would suggest basic first aid training for all staff. I would also instruct to take limited first aid action if they judge the situation needs it.

Posted By Jay Joshi The First Aid Manual --i.e. the authorised manual of the voluntary aid agencies (i.e. St John Ambulance, St Andrew's Ambulance Assocition & British Red Cross) states under the heading Duty of Care, "If First Aiders practice( Mod. Law Rev. 1990, 53) their skills in accordance with proper accepted first-aid practice, it is unlikely that a civil action in the application of firstiaid would succeed............."

Posted By Keith Archer. Michael, I would suggest that you review your current instructions on this matter, Take the following scenario: You are with two colleagues working late and there is no one else in the office your two colleagues are not qualified first aiders. You are all having a pizza while discussing work issues when you suddenly start to choke on a piece of pizza. Your colleagues under your present procedures stand and watch you choking and as a consequence you end up choking to death. Not very pleasant but I hope it jolts you into changing the present situation. If an unqualified person provides first aid it is very unlikely that that person will be prosecuted the same I would imagine would go for that persons employer. However as you say your staff attending to people in the sheltered scheme are under the same rule. Answer yourself the following: Do you have responsibility and therefore a duty of care the people in this scheme? If the answer is yes then you will most certainly be liable to prosecution by not administering any form of first aid to that person whether qualified or unqualified. Hope this helps Keith

Posted By Graham Bullough For instinctive humanitarian reasons most people who are not qualified first aiders will tend to want to help a casualty in an emergency situation. Thus, banning or advising employees not to give first aid is unlikely to overcome their instinct if a qualified employee is not available. Therefore, where feasible, I would support the suggestions of offering basic first aid training to all staff. In situations where urgent first aid is required, it's better for everybody concerned for it to be rendered by people who at least have a basic knowledge rather than none at all. In some cases the best first aid is knowing what not to do other than reassure the casualty and seek specialist help! First aid is a valuable knowledge/skill which people of any age can find themselves unexpectedly needing at any time whether at home, work, while travelling or during leisure activities. Sadly the proportion of people who don't know what to do when faced with a casualty probably far exceeds those who do. Although some enlightened primary and secondary schools teach their pupils first aid, it seems that most do not. Therefore, as part of preparing young people for a safer life and being able to be effective "Good Samaritans" when things go wrong, both in and outside work, is there not a strong case for encouraging schools to provide first aid training for their pupils? In the long term surely this would significantly increase the number of people who are able to give reasonably competent first aid, and furthermore be willing to get refresher training at appropriate intervals. If so, the practical difference between designated first aiders and other employees may gradually diminish and thus tend to help resolve the issue which underlies Michael Webb's query. This thread stimulates various questions: Does anyone have information to share about the basis and outcome of cases where casualties or their relatives have sued persons who have rendered first aid? For example, I recall an item in the press some months ago about a father who was suing a first aid organisation because volunteer members were not able to revive his daughter who collapsed during a sporting event. However, does anyone know what the outcome was? (One of the benefits of teaching first aid in schools would be to promote better understanding about first aid, including its context and limitations.) Are there any existing initiatives to persuade schools to offer first aid tuition? If so, how successful have they been? What are the problems, e.g. lack of sufficient qualified people to give the tuition, and how can they be overcome? Is there scope for IOSH and other organisations and their members to press, by various means, for first aid tuition in schools? Do other countries have first aid tuition as a standard feature in their schools?

Posted By Laurie I am not a first aider, but I have completed resuscitation and CPR training. If it became necssary for me to use that training I would do so, and so, I suspect, would anybody else. Laurie

Posted By Bob Randall The "rule" you are thinking of is the exception made for rescuers to novus actus interveniens when trying to establish negligence. Ordinarily a new act (novus actus) by a person which worsens the original situation would break the chain of causation between the original cause and the consequences. For example if a person falls in the street as a result of an uneven surface and stumbles into the road into the path of an oncoming car the owner of the pavement is liable for his injuries. If on the other hand the person falls into the street but gets up with only minor injuries but is subsequently struck by someone driving in excess of the speed limit then the owner of the pavement is not liable for the injuries caused by the car driver because a new act has intervened. To use another example if a manufacturing company negligently fails to ensure the safety of its operators using a hot process and an operator is badly scalded and collapses the company is clearly liable for the operators injuries at civil law and might also be prosecuted under Section 2(1) of the HASAW Act. However let us suppose that a colleague moves the casualty away from the source of the scalding liquid and in so doing causes further injury. That is not regarded as a novus actus because it is seen as entirely foreseeable that people will try to help by rescuing the casualty. Your position is that you do not have a legal duty to your elderly clients to provide first aid. Your only statutory duty is towards your employees and you could not be prosecuted for any failure to provide first aid to clients. As regards the likelihood of a succesful civil action the pursuer or plaintiff would have to establish a duty of care and that a negligent act or omission by the person who owed a duty of care was the cause of their loss or injury. For all the reasons already given by other contributors I think that it is unlikely that a judgement would be made against an employee in such circumstances. The only way that you as a company could be involved in a civil action is for the plaintiff or pursuer to establish that you are vicariously liable. To do this they must prove that the employee who rendered first aid was acting "in the course of enmployment". If the person is not employed to render first aid but is simply acting out of a perceived moral duty then the Company cannot be liable. If the employee is a trained first aider or appointed person then provided that their qualifications are up to date and that they act within the limits of their training neither they nor you could be liable. Hope this helps. Bob Randall

Posted By John Webster ......and a rather different scenario, as at any dangerous sporting event the risk of injury is wholly forseeable (in this case the risk of head injury leading to irreversible brain damage - as the whole objective of boxing is to inflict sufficient brain injury to your opponent as to render him unconscious). A professional sportsperson is at work, so presumably the promoters of such events must provide appropriate emergency cover under HSWA, regardless of any othe legislaton relating to first aid at public events.