Posted By Zoe Barnett The only thing I find useful in this situation is to refer to the organisation's liability insurances. However in the past even this hasn't reassured nervous new first aiders who have asked to see the policy document to check that they are covered and that I'm not pulling the wool over their eyes just to keep the First Aider quotient up. I think this whole issue is indicative of a trend amongst "reputable" first aid training providers, who seem to be touting for trade first and providing rational training second. Regular readers may recall a post I made alerting colleagues to the fact that one provider was telling trainees that they needed to do a five day course in order to be "legal." Do colleagues find this as worrying as I do?

Posted By Sean Fraser As someone who recently renewed his First Aid at Work training, I found this an interesting thread. The words "liability" did come up at one point but were gone so quickly it didn't really register - we certainly weren't encouraged to follow it up OR purchase personal indemnity cover. The most prevailing impression I got from my re-training was the message of simplicity - assess the situation, call for help, keep the casualty comfortable/alive until professional help arrives, in that order. It was impressed upon us that we did not need to know medical jargon, we weren't quasi-paramedics, we weren't more than ordinary employees who now had some additional knowledge that would help us to assist in an emergency situation. I liked that - it removed some of the pressure people must have previously felt when they did the training, although it is sometimes difficult to get this message across to fellow employees when they ask for minor medical advice! From the start of this thread I got the distinct impression that once again we have discovered a link between necessary health and safety requirements and commercial industry - it would not surprise me to find that this particular training organisation has some sort of commission-based arrangement with a particular insurance provider, and from one reply it may seem this may not be the only one. A similar thread was on recently where a commercial organisation was mis-using the good name of Essex Fire Brigade to get people to purchase a particular product and using threat of legal non-compliance as a means of scaring less-informed businesses into buying it, in effect, mis-selling. There is an insidious move towards such commerical link ups in general, which in this instance I believe probably comes under the FSA, especially on the part of the financial provider. Although I do not disagree with sponsorship, associations and cross-selling per se, I do believe that such arrangements need to be up front so that people are aware that this is advertising a product or service, and not using "legal" requirements as a tool to scare people into making quick decisions. There are ethical rules governing most industries in terms of Codes of Conduct and even regulatory bodies, but these are often self-enforcing and sometimes lack the bite they need to get the particular house in order. I endorse the previous response stating that you should contact your own insurance company first regarding the employers liability insurance, then contact the training organisation and ask them the basis of their advice that First Aiders seek additional personal indemnity insurance. I would expect you might find they are actually representing a particular provider but keep this link fairly well hidden, and this could be the basis of a complaint to both them and the HSE as a regulatory body regarding mis-reprepresentation. It is only by complaining that we are likely to nip these things in the bud and to ensure fair play in the future.

Posted By Robert K Lewis I think this may be occurring because the Trainers believe that once qualified a F/Aider may well have occassion to practice their skill outside of the work situation - hence no indemnity under the EL insurance. This does become a tricky area and it has been known that F/Aiders are sued for damage to clothing that has been cut off in order to gain "urgent" action!!! I can't see a way round this as we are fast approaching the US style litigation atmosphere. There was a thread some months ago with the American Awards for the most bizarre compensation awards. I am afraid that in common with much of life the need for personal liability insurance is becoming almost obligatory. Bob

Posted By Ashley Williams On a similar basis we have had people come back from our providers insisting that we need defribulator training and must have same sex first aiders per casualty? Ash

Posted By Geoff Burt Do you have the details of claims from accident victims against first aiders. I haven't heard this before. Geoff

Posted By Robert M Edwards There is as yet no legal precedent in the higher courts for actions against first aiders, just a handfull of civil ( unreported cases). However there are a few points arising out of the postings so far. Vicarious liability would only cover first aid in the workplace given to co- workers. What about the issue of the member of the public who requires first aid whilst on the employer's premises- these people are not catered for in HSE guidelines? Again a grey area and one worth checking with your insurers it does not fit in neatly with Public liability cover. Secondly the issue of first aid being provided to the public at large by those qualified also carries some risk. The courts are challenged by the present law but certainly providing first aid to anyone carries some risk of being sued. However there are a number of defence options open all of which are robust! For a lengthy explanation of the history of the various redresses in law, and defence options look at http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm It provides a really cohesive explanation and covers all areas of potential claim.

Posted By martin knox Stuart is absolutely correct, there is no legalrequirement for a first aider to be idemnified on a personal basis, as they are usually.......and I say usually covered under the employers (Compulsory Employee liability insurance and or the Employer Public Liability Insurance). You will need to tie in with your insurers to see what or who your first aiders are idemnifed to treat,while at work, However - out on the streets away from work, is completely different, give the wrong treatment in good faith or give negilgent treatmnet or encounter a where theres blame, there is a claim type person and you may well risk all of your worldly possessions, I recently dealt with the same type of query from our first aiders - I explained the legalaties to them and also obtained a copy of our idemnity schedule to show them - they are fully covered. From what you have said - the training provider is not explaining themselves or the position fully, check with the policy that your first aiders are covered to give first aid to, visitors, contractors and members of the public - while at work!!!!!! Martin

Posted By Robert M Edwards Whilst at work and under the employer's insurance there is not an issue. As the HSE do not require first aid to be given to members of the public who attend the premises, some insurance policies do restrict the cover to employees only. It is worth reviewing your cover (both public and employers) at this stage. However the issue of first aid to the public at large is a thorny problem. It is nowhere near as simple as suggesting a policy for everyone to cover all aspects of life! If, by giving first aid you are at risk of litigation then you need to consider the insurance aspect. There is no legal requirement to do so, it just makes sense. All assets are considered in litigation including the property you live in so risk depends on what is at stake.

Posted By Jane Blunt Just a word of caution. The Employers Liability Insurance covers the first aiders at work within their own workplace. However, if the workplace is shared between companies and there is an informal agreement between them over reciprocal provision, reciprocal insurance is not automatic. However, simply notifying the insurers that this is happening is usually sufficient to sort out the problem. What we haven't managed to sort out satisfactorily is the case of someone entering from the street requiring first aid. Jane

Posted By Ken Taylor Would it, perhaps, be reasonable to take the view that, whenever a person is acting as an appointed first-aider (whether in the course of their employment or as an appointed volunteer for an event or similar), liability insurance should either be in place as required by statute or as a wise precaution but that when a person, in possession of a first-aid qualification or ability, performs first-aid on am impromptu basis as an act of common humanity it would not be a reasonable assumption?