Posted By Nicky I have been told that to give First Responders manual handling training would mean that the ambulance service would be liable for compensation should a FR lift and hurt their back. At present there is a "No lifting" policy. This is ignored generally, esp. as the ambulance crews often ask for help in order to comply with their "least lifting policy". I do not believe that they can have it both ways, but has anyone got any cases or advice. Nicky

Posted By Robert M Edwards There is no legal definition for volunteer in uk law so the duty of care has to be interpreted as the same or near to that required by employees. Therefore to suggest training could attract liability is nonsense! Training is essential together with clear policies outlining behaviour on first response incidents to successfully defend any possible claims. These should be reviewed alongside all other existing polices for patient handling for full time staff. If it helps to chat this through please phone us, we are happy to promote good practice. We have a number of lawyers who specialised in these sorts of claims. No charge is made for a bit of help!

Posted By Nicky Thanks Robert, I would like to find out exactly why it may be possible to claim more money if First Responders are not trained, even though there is a clear "no lifting" policy - (and by their very nature FR's are not going to see ambulance crews struggle.) Once the ambulance crew had to lift a patient who weighed more than their combined weight - as she was gravely ill they could not wait for an additional crew. Of course we stepped in, otherwise more injuries could have occurred. FR's are on the Liability Insurance (first thing I checked). regards Nicky

Posted By Nicky Thanks again Robert, I am a First Responderwith no control over the type of call etc. We just get paged when there are certain types of 999 calls. I am after information for a meeting with the ambulance service. (First Responders outnumber ambulance personnel in our county.) Manual handling is a major problem that could be managed better- in my humble opinion. Can't say anymore in public. Thanks again, nicky

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Nicky, There appears to be some misconceptions here. An employer is not immediately liable if there is an injury, because the claimant must show: 1. Beach of contract or 2. Breach of statutory duty or 3. Negligence In the case you describe, as there is no contract then 1 does not apply. However, 2 applies if the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 2793) apply. These regulations may apply if the courts define volunteers as employees; this is a real possibility despite the lack of contract, due to degree of control of the volunteer's activities, and the provision of equipment and uniforms to them. Regardless of the above there would be a duty of care under the common law, thus 3 would apply. If there is a duty of care, and I would presume there is, then you have to do what is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. You would have to assess their risks to determine what measures you need to take and then take all reasonably practicable measures. In Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] 1 All ER 743 at 747 Asquith LJ said: ‘… “reasonably practicable” is a narrower term than “physically possible” and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them—the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice—the defendants discharge the onus on them. Moreover, this computation falls to be made by the owner at a point of time anterior to the accident. The questions he has to answer are: (a) What measures are necessary and sufficient to prevent any breach of [the section]? (b) Are these measures reasonably practicable?’ I hope that this helps. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Mark Large I've no idea how the law sees this but in my mind you have to risk access the task. If there is a risk that people will manual handle even when told not to then you should train them how to manual handle properly. I would hope the courts would recognised that in some circumstances a lift was unavoidable and that you had prepared against that possiblity.

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Robert, I didn't state that the duty of care arose from a contract. The duty of care arises in common law from the duty of care because of the proximity of the ambulance authority to the volunteer. Regards Adrian

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Bob, I didn't say that either, what I said was, there are 3 method of claiming: Firstly for breach of contract; Secondly for breach of statutory duty; and Thirdly in tort. I discounted the first, because there rarely is a contract, because the essential elements of a contract, i.e. Offer, Acceptance and Consideration, do not exist. I said that the second may or may not apply, but that is a matter of law and fact for each case. I stated that the third invariably exists, and some one could sue for negligence. I hope this clarifies my thoughts. Regards Adrian