Posted By Andy McGrath
Hi there,

I was wondering whether anyone knows of any legalities regarding if a non-first aider carries out some first aid.

Completely Hypothetical scenario (I work in a Sports Centre), but probable.

A member of the public cuts their hand & asks reception for a first aider. After calling for a first aider the receptionist then waits for a first aider to arrive (which could take a couple of minutes) by which time the person collapses & the first aid becomes a lot more serious.

Scenario two.

A member of the public cuts their hand & asks reception for a first aider. After calling for a first aider the (unqualified) receptionist applies pressure & sits the person down (yes I know a First Aider might do even more). The receptionist gets it wrong & somehow (?) aggravates the situation. The injured person somehow complains & sues the organisation.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

I am trying to get a couple of our reception staff on one day appointed person courses to avoid either of the above. But would be interested to hear anyones opinions on the above.

Thanks

Andy

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Andy

As the previous post suggests there is no obligation to treat an injured person. However, even a non-qualified person providing first aid is unlikely to be sued for trying their best.

Ideally, a trained first aider should be available, but again there is no legal obligation to provide these except for the workplace.

Ray

Posted By Wayne Pitt
In Australia we have a thing called the "Good Samaritans Act" or some such name. Basically the up shot is that no person has been successfully sued for assisting within their level of skill. Of course the best way of showing your skill level may be via a first aid course but you also may have picked up the skills via every day experiences.

I also believe that our legal system would not be keen on litigation when a person is genuinely trying to assist when a person is in need...The thought behind this is that if people were being sued for helping then people would not help others when needed. The courts don't want to see people too afraid to render reasonable assistance if required.

Obviously most reasonable people would know how to assist with bleeding control etc. On the other hand ...having a go at an emergency tracheotomy (like you saw on a TV soap show) would not be seen as within the scope of the average person.

Just my 2 bobs worth.

Wayne

Posted By Descarte
However there is no 'Good Samaritan' statute in this country, no such Law exists, there is NO legal duty to treat. This also applies to Doctors and Nurses. The difference for a Healthcare Professional is that although they do not have a LEGAL duty to treat they do have a PROFESSIONAL duty. In other words, a nurse failing to attend an accident could not be taken to court for not doing so but could be held accountable by their professional body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

First Aiders, of course, are not Healthcare Professionals and are not bound by professional obligations. They are, however, still potentially legally accountable for their actions. Whether acting in or out of the workplace, the volunteer who provides first aid has assumed a Duty of Care. Once the Duty of Care is taken on, an appropriate Standard of Care must desmonstrably be adhered to - the first aider must be able to justify their actions as being reasonable and in accordance with an informed body of expert medical opinion i.e what they were taught on their first aid course. If the first aider can prove that they acted in accordance with their training, they will be safe legally. If they have acted outside their training and it is proved that these actions have worsened the casualty's condition, then they will certainly be legally liable and could be deemed negligent.

An example: a first aider dealing with a foreign body upper airway obstruction carries out backslaps followed by abdominal thrusts. Failing to clear the obstruction and forgetting what to do next, the first aider instead grabs a handy penknife, wrestles the struggling casualty to the floor and stabs an incision into the hapless victims cricothyroid membrane, as remembered from a recent episode of 'Casualty'...the ensuing bleeding completely occludes the airway and the person asphyxiates....

However in germany it appearsto be the opposite, if you dont give first aid you can be prosecuted

"If someone is involved in an accident or is the first person on the scene of an accident, first aid ("Erste Hilfe") must be given. This person must also call the police and/or an ambulance. Should you leave the scene of an accident without giving first aid, you could be prosecuted for failing to render assistance ("unterlassene Hilfeleistung")"

However there is propsed "Promotion of Volunteering Bill"
Bill 18 of 2003-4

Includes

The purpose of clause 5 is to protect members of the public who offer assistance to those who are suffering or injured or at imminent risk of harm from later being sued under common law for accidental injury. Specifically, clause 5 states:

Any person who – (a) without payment or the expectation of payment, assists any other person, and (b) has reasonable grounds for believing that the other person is suffering or injured or faces imminent serious injury, shall not as a consequence of any action performed by him in good faith be liable at common law for any harm caused to that person unless he intended to cause harm.

The intention behind clause 5 is to move the law forward considerably; it purports to exclude liability for any action performed in good faith by a good Samaritan who voluntarily offers assistance to a suffering or injured or imperilled person. The test is one of ‘good faith’ rather than one of ‘reasonableness’. This means that provided the good Samaritan believes he is helping and has no malicious intent he will not be liable for his actions under this provision. This would be a major departure from current law where there are grounds for bringing a negligence claim against a good Samaritan if (regardless of his good intentions) his actions are reckless, unreasonable or out of all proportion to the circumstances and serve only to make the situation worse.

So it would appear if this bill is passed then the UK would have a good Samaritan law

www.parliament.uk/common...arch/rp2004/rp04-021.pdf

More info and past threads here:

http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=22976

or try the serach function for first aider liability