Posted By John_72 Is anyone aware of this successfully occurring. namely a First aider being sued by an invidual? (employee or member of the public). To the best of my knowledge this has never occurred. Our specific issue is that some of our first aiders have resigned as they are concerned about being liable say for example if they apply a plaster, to which the recipient is allergic. We as a corporate body do indemnify our first aiders if they are acting within the scope of their duties. But were a prosecution to take place that determination would be made by a judge, so i was wondering if there was any existing case law.

Posted By John Lewis The resuscitation council have some stuff on their website about this. www.resus.org.uk/pages/Legal.htm

Posted By Ali Spell check please !

Posted By John_72 Ali, if thats as good as your responses to a question get please find another forum to troll.

Posted By Jim Walker So.............is the consensus that this is another urban myth perpetuated by insurance sellers?

Posted By Descarte Sorry to bable on more about this but finding some interesting info: 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

Posted By Raymond Rapp Descarte et al I checked out the article you have cut and pasted and there is little to suggest that it is a bonified article or indeed organisation. Therefore I would still dispute that someone providing first aid with the best intentions would be liable to any civil claim if something went wrong. The concept is akin to walking past a person drowning in a lake. There is no legal obligation to help that person, only a moral one, and you can't be sued for that. Ray

Posted By PH A couple of years ago I attended a seminar where one of the speakers was a top bod from the British Red Cross. He stated categorically that there had never been a case where a first aider had been successfully sued for giving appropriate treatment, in fact he went so far as to challenge any of the legal beagles there (it was a mixed audience of lawyers, safety people etc.)to present a scenario where a case would be successful - no one took him on. I have also heard of some St. Johns people who claim to know of a case, but I wonder whether they use this as a training technique to reinforce the importance of sticking to the rules. I also wish I had a pound for every barrack room lawyer I've met who once knew someone who had heard of somebodies third cousin removed who once got sued because of the first aid treatment they gave. Paul

Posted By Descarte Raymond this is indeed the case in the UK and Ireland However in the rest of the EU there appears to be a general penal law duty to rescue people in distress, such a general duty to come to the rescue of strangers is laid down in the national Penal Codes. There are however issues related to putting yourself in danger to rescue may remove this duty, but this is very country specific. In England the only laws requiring you to stay at an incident and/or help is where you have a relationship of dependance (ie. your child) or at the scene of a road accident to which you were involved.

Posted By Descarte But back to the initial question. Actions would very likely not stand against a first aider performing his duties with good intentions so long as he/she did not act in a willfully negligent or malicious manner. There is no current UK case law I am aware of or can find, though that supports this, however German, Dutch and French laws and civil codes do however mitigate or remove the liability of the rescuer for damages caused by his/her actions (negotiorum gestio) so long as they are not acting willfully negligent or grossly recklessly. I belive there is even a case in French law where a damage was caused by panic and emotion to which he/she was acquitted - "Cf. A. Tunc, Jurisprudence, 61 RTDCiv (1963), 329: `ce n'est pas sentimentalisme, mais droit rigoureux, que reconnaître souvent dans l'urgence ou le désir d'aider (…) une excuse à une attitude qui, en d'autres circonstances, serait jugée imprudence ou maladresse"

Posted By Brett Day I find it interesting that when it comes to administering medication and aspirin St Johns stance from courses and St Johns representatives I have had contact with have stated that no first aider has ever been sued. Yet when it comes to selling first aider insurance there is this 'mythical' case being put forward as the reason why we should all rush out and take up thier insurance. Would anyone from St Johns care to explain this disparity ???

Posted By GeoffB4 PH, by my reckoning you owe Bob a quid.

Posted By Bob Henson Sally, thanks for your post, here are some brief details of first aiders being sued. I have no specific information yet about first aiders being prosecuted (offences against the criminal law) as opposed to sued (claims for civil damages). I am aware that various people have been jailed for impersonating paramedics etc, (sadly these nutters do exist!) this is one reason why giving a blanket legal immunity to first aiders is problematical. Cattley v St John’s Ambulance 1988 Sean Cattley was 15 when he entered a schoolboy motor cycle scrambling event in 1984. During the event he fell from his motor cycle landing on his back. What happened next was subject to some disagreement by the various parties in court. It appears that Sean was moved off the track without the use of a stretcher or body board. He was subsequently admitted to Stoke Mandeville hospital with spinal injuries. He made a partial recovery but has long term problems as a result of the accident. In 1988 he sued St John’s Ambulance for negligence on the grounds that being moved in the manner that he was, seriously exacerbated his injuries. Sean sued for the sum of £45,000 to assist him with the cost of travelling to Stoke Mandeville, the result of the delay in his studies on his ability to find work etc. as well as for general pain and suffering. The case was heard in the High Court on 25th November, 1988. The judge ruled that the St John’s ambulance volunteers had acted professionally and in accordance with their training manual which he described as “the first aider’s bible”. The judge found them not to be negligent and gave judgement for the defendants. The next version of the training manual was more specific about how to treat a casualty with suspected spinal injuries, viz. DO NOT move the casualty from the position found unless they are in danger or become unconscious. If they must be moved, use a scoop stretcher, or a modified log roll. I guess that you cannot hold anyone to be negligent for failing to anticipate the next release of the manual! Personally, having read the transcript of the court proceedings, I feel a lot of sympathy for the unfortunate Mr Cattley. This case has become a precedent in case law and has subsequently been referred to through the world. The crucial words in the judgement were that first aiders would be not be negligent if they acted in accordance with their training with the standards expected of an ordinary skilled first aider. The standard being defined as that in the manual used for their training. Leonard v Girl Guide Association 1995 In 1995 an eleven year old girl guide attended her first camp. During that camp she burnt her leg whilst cooking sausages. She sued on the grounds that the first aid treatment was inadequate and that there were insufficient levels of instruction and supervision. The case was heard at Truro County Court on 25th May, 1995. The judge dismissed the action and congratulated the Guiders on their prompt first aid treatment of the casualty. Loyley v St John’s Ambulance Perhaps it is incorrect to use the above notation since the case did reach court, the case was, I understand, lodged and scheduled to be heard at the High Court. This is a particularly tragic case and concerns Anna Loyley who was an extremely fit and talented young woman. Anna competed in the Bath half marathon in 1998 and collapsed on the finishing line. Two St John’s volunteers arrived in a short period of time with an AED (automated external defibrillator- gives electric shocks to restart the heart). They were unable to resuscitate Anna, she was immediately transferred to hospital and pronounced to be dead. There has been extensive discussion about this case particularly surrounding an alleged delay in applying the AED and actuating the shock. The Loyley family felt that the St John’s volunteers had failed to use the AED promptly and correctly. In 2001 court action was commenced for £400,000. The case was settled out of court and St John’s issued a statement. The complete statement was published in the Bath Chronicle on 20th October, 2001. Briefly it stated that, as a tribute to Anna, St John would allocate a sum from its budgeted programme for training of personnel in the use of defibrillators, such a fund to be known as The Anna Loyley Memorial Fund. The sum was not specified. It is apparent from reading the detail that the Loyley family were not interested in the money for themselves. The case seems to have been initiated to kickstart action for a change in the legislation surrounding major sporting events such as the Bath half marathon. Their view is that a much greater presence of professional medical support is needed at these events. The legislation regarding first aid provision at football matches was changed following Hillsborough and the Loyley’s view seems to be that similar legislation is required for this type of mass athletic event. France has more robust requirements and has a very low incidence of deaths in this type of event. My interest in this work is as a member of a mountain rescue team. If anyone has any useful information to add, please let me know. If anyone wants further detail just email me.

Posted By Tabs Bob, great citations, thank you. You are answering a perenial problem and that wiull certainly help the next time I am faced with the question (as oft times before) cheers.

Posted By w.j. jones John not forgetting that someone would have to be proved to have been negligent. wayne

Posted By Daniel Graham Bob, Please can you contact me on whiteminiman at gmail dot com. I this we will be able to help each other with research. Kind regards, WMM

Posted By Dan Malone Hi there. With regard to First Aiders Prosecutions, In Ireland that is no Good Samaritan rule as in the US. It has been claimed by solicitors that First Aiders may be prosecuted. First Aiders should always have regard to "Do No Harm" when helping. Persons may be prosecuted if they are have blatant disregard to the patient and are negligent in providing first aid. A patient may refuse medical attention if they wish. If the patient is unconscious administer First Aid till that become conscious and refuse any further. In the end it all comes down to a court case if there was one. Remember All reasonable care. Regards Dan Malone