like it or not the question of liability raises its ugly head whenever you offer advice or assistance to someone. The owner of this group has a statement limiting his liability should you try something you read about on this group and are injured. I know a medical doctor who was sued by someone that he saved who had fallen in the back country. The individual was unconscious, had a broken leg and head injuries, and could not give his permission for the doctor to help him. So far all of the first aid information we're talking about is proactive and assumes that every one will want help and will be thankful afterwards, not that someone will sue you for helping them, say for instance your gauze was not sterile and they got an infection, or whatever, this is a litigious society.

It has been brought to my attention that a release form limiting ones liability and giving permission for you to help them, (and probably a release also from any HIPA clauses) just might be a good idea. Good Samaritan laws aside, each state is different and any one or their family can sue you for anything. I don't think this should be taken lightly.

What if you give up on resuscitating someone, or you go for help and give the incorrect GPS coordinates to the SR guys, or that you were not proactive enough in obtaining help, like you camped at dark rather than proceeding on to find a ranger, or that you didn't do everything that you could, like wrapping the person in your own sleeping bag because they were a day hiker and so they died of hypothermia?

We also had a recent case in Oregon of Christian Scientists parents being found guilty of manslaughter for not taking their child to a doctor. The subject of sterility is serious as is the question of a face condom. If you move someone and they are crippled for life you have to prove to a jury, at your expense, that you thought you were doing it for their own good, AND that any reasonable person would have thought the same thing, and then hope the jury holds you harmless, I don't know about you but I don't want my future in the hands of a jury.

I think maybe everyone should carry a medical/HIPA release form if they intend to try to help an injured person; they should be included if first aid kits.
Jim

Jim, I agree, this is a serious issue. I was sued by the family of a young man whose life I feel I saved.

Here is the basic situation: I was hiking up Ruth Creek near Mt. Baker in NW Washington State when I encountered an hysterical young woman at the edge of a snow finger from an avalanche track. I tried to get her to tell me what the problem was and finally, she was able to tell me that her boyfriend had decided to cross the track and had slid down the steep snow to the bottom. As it turned out later, he was wearing tennis shoes.

With the young woman, I climbed down through the brush along the track and found the young man in a pile of broken trees and brush at the bottom; he was upside down and contorted, bleeding from the ears and from numerous facial contusions, his pupils were unequal and nonreactive. His breathing was labored, obviously restricted, and noisy. There was clear fluid, not mucus, draining from his nose. She said that about an hour and a half had passed since he fell.

In my judgment, he was going to die soon if he was left in his present contorted position; being doubled over was severely interfering with his breathing. So, I stabilized his neck with what I had available and removed him carefully from the brush pile with the young woman helping. Since he obviously had a head injury, I put him in a level position on a nearby flat spot. I covered him, wrote a detailed note describing where we were, his condition, what I had done and what I would be doing and sent the young woman to the USFS ranger station on the Nooksack River.

Seven hours later, Mountain Rescue arrived and transported the young man to a hospital in Bellingham. I went home, exhausted. I later heard that he survived but was paralyzed from the neck down as a consequence of head injuries, not from a broken neck.

About five months later, I was served with the notice that I was being sued by his family for damages. The primary claim was that I had recklessly moved the young man and caused permanent paralysis through my actions. Moreover, the claim was made that I had exceeded the scope of my training in emergency medicine and so the good Samaritan law did not apply.

Fortunately, during a deposition, I made the point that I had had extensive training and experience in dealing with field trauma as part of my training as a U. S. Army Special Forces medic. I also mentioned that an acquaintance who taught emergency medicine at the University of Washington Medical School was prepared to testify that I had done the appropriate things. Apparently I was able to make the case that I had not exceeded my training or experience and that I had not been "reckless". The suit was dropped shortly after the deposition was made.

My point here is that one should always keep in mind the training you have had. If you attempt heroic measures to save a life, you could easily wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. It is an individual call to decide between a life and a potential lawsuit. Here, the idea of a lawsuit never entered my mind; I was just doing what I thought was right. It is a hard choice. Trust me, even if you have done nothing wrong being sued is not a pleasant experience.

Thank you Pika, glad you prevailed.

If he was unconscious doesn't that mean consent was implied? Did that prevent anyone from suing you?

I had to testify in court today as a character witness for my best friend, and probably because of my testimony he was sent to prison for 20 months instead of 20 years because he helped someone out who was under age.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU HELP.

I lost my home because of my choice of contractor.

BE CAREFUL WHO YOU LET HELP YOU.

I'm sorry if I'm extra cynical today.
Jim

Wow, that is a disturbing story.

Would your personal liability insurance (the stuff that we have with a home owner's insurance policy) have covered you if the suit had proceeded?

Hi Pika

One thing I don't understand - why did the family want to sue you? Were they thinking that you could reach back to someone with deep pockets (like an insurer) or were they just being vengeful and looking for someone to blame?

Cheers

Damian

The answer is yes, at least in Texas, as long as you are not a paid professional. Because of my involvement as a rescue diver for the dragboat races, I have attached an unbrella policy to my homeowners. I did this right after being involved (not named) in a lawsuit, where a driver crashed his boat and sued the association, the promoter, and the major sponsor of the event.

It has also been interpreted by some states supreme courts, that a person can not forfeit his families right to sue. In one case, a Scuba diver that had signed a waiver, and died while diving the Andrea Doria. The NJ state supreme court decided that while he did in fact sign away his own right to sue, he could not forfeit his wife's or daughter's right to sue. Amazingly, this attitude closely follows the red vs blue state lines.

Not many people care about right or wrong, they just want the money.

I think so but don't have any recall of what the limits would have been. This happened in 1971; I was a graduate student at the time and really poor. My wife and I had a 9-month-old son and were really struggling. We carried renters homeowners/liability insurance and I think the insurer would have covered had the need arisen. Fortunately, I never had to find out for sure. My brother, a California attorney, was advising me about the issue. He was not licensed in Washington but knew enough about Washington law to keep me from doing something stupid. He accompanied me to the deposition but never had to interfere in my testimony. He did coach me beforehand.


I don't really know why they wanted to sue me. I sure didn't have deep pockets; I barely had pockets at all. I think there were two factors: First, they were hurting and wanted to blame someone other than their son for this; Second, I think that they encountered an attorney who might have smelled a contingency fee here. In the discovery documents to which I had to respond there were questions regarding my net worth (ha), income (ha again) and insurance. I think my deposition testimony showed that I was not a first-aider run amok but was a reasonably well qualified medic with considerable training and experience in dealing with field trauma. I think I was also able to convince the family attorney that the young man was lucky I came along when I did. And, fortunately for me, I had qualified medical backup in my emergency medical physician acquaintance. Moreover, the young man's girl friend was in a position to corroborate my testimony. She would not support the family in the suit in any way.

Frankly, I think I was lucky with this whole mess: being sued certainly did not reinforce my faith in human nature. I was in the process of finishing my dissertation and did not need this sort of distraction.

I'm no attorney but there is one of those greasey slugs under every rock. I see the rational of carrying a medical release to have someone sign as consent and a waiver of liability. BUT, I'm thinking if the person truly needs your help in an emergency, then they would be signing the waiver under duress...which kinda won't stand in court...If they refuse to sign and you refuse to help, there is nothing to stop them from attempting to sue you for negligence of some sort. The jury will make the decision as to whether or not you were obligated to assist. Either way, as a Christian, I'll offer my assistance without hesitation...

It sure is a shame that this topic even needs to be addressed...

I also have an umbrella liability which covers when my auto or homeowners liability leaves off. It's really worth having. Check with your insurance agent.

Re a release of liability--I was told in my business law course (that was back in 1980, though) that they're not worth the paper they are written on. The injured party can always claim negligence which pretty much invalidates the release.

There are Good Samaritan laws in almost every state that are supposed to protect persons assisting the injured. Check yours. However, in Oregon, at least, thanks to a state Supreme Court case a year ago, you could still be ruled liable in case of negligence or trying to perform a task beyond your ability. In this particular case, it was untrained persons trying to get someone with a broken neck out of a car wreck without stabilizing the spine first. In other words, if you don't have the training, don't try it. Carry your first-aid certificate with you.

The Supreme Court case sounds like (I haven't read any of the specifics of the case) the typical outcome when untrained people are unleashed on an emergency.

Pika's case is certainly sobering, and I am glad to receive it first hand, rather than as urban legend.

I have assisted a lot of people over the years, both within a SAR context, and as a bystander. I have never messsed with liability forms and I don't think I will. I also understand they are worthless if you are negligent. I try really hard not to be negligent.

I wonder how I would feel about myself if I were to shun an accident scene because of fear of liability. What kind of world would we create if that behavior were the norm? Not the kind of world I would prefer, for sure..

OM, unless there is an Oregon case with identical facts, the case you cited is a California Supreme Court case, Van Horn v.Watson (2008) 45 Cal.4th 322, which you can read here
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S152360.PDF

In California, the rule is a stranger has no duty to render aid, but if you do so, you have to exercise due care. The Good Samaritan rule applies to the rendering of medical aid only.

For Texas:


It appears you can get into just as much trouble for NOT rendering aid.

Dryer,
I've read that quote several times and I don't see where not rendering aid if you are untrained can make you liable.

Tom D, I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean to direct that to Oregon Mouse.
Jim S

Jim, I guess the "unless the act is wilfully or wantonly negligent." is what caught my eye.

To me, this means "failure to render aid" or simply walking away, which is wilful negligence.
When I taught diving in the 80's we were told/warned of a story about an instructor in California who got sued by the mother of a drowned girl...whom the instructor revived. He had to remove her swimsuit top to administer chest compressions. The mother charged he exposed her to "all those on-lookers" against her will.

Well now days he would be thrown in jail for molestation, labeled a pervert, and be required to register as a sex offender. I have a friend currently serving time for helping an under aged girl that said she was 18. You don't even have to touch a girl, yelling at a girl can make you a sex offender (because its aggressive). My wife who works in a law firm knows of one guy who saved a girls life by grabbing her out of the way of a speeding car who is now a registered sex offender because of saving her (he grabbed her aggressively).

Oregon is a "law and order" state and they don't care who they throw in jail as long as they get somebody convicted. You see jails are big business here, a huge business, yet it has been shown to have no effect on the crime rate. Oregon defense attorneys feel they have done a good job if people only get charged with what they actually did. The number of mentally ill, homeless, and minorities in our jails is way too high.

So again, doing nothing maybe the only safe act, and is doing nothing "negligent"? I think its only negligent if you have a responsibility to act. After seeing what they did to my friend and having to testify as to his character, I hate to say it, but I might just watch an injured teenager die. Or should I try to save someone and spend the rest of my life in jail? I say this because it is no longer cut and dried, you don't just help someone because its (the right thing to do) and as has been pointed out - liability releases are worthless.

Its a sick world we live in.
Jim

Jim, No I didn't-I have separated the two comments, it is no longer in my previous post and appears below:

FAIR WARNING:
As all of you should know, we have a strict policy regarding personal attacks on other members. They will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Also, as many of you know, I am an attorney (it's in my profile, for one thing) and I resent anyone making blanket disparaging remarks about me, based on my profession, especially when the person making them does not know me. Anyone who continues to do so after being warned will be banned from the boards.

PS, Don't bother arguing you have free speech rights here, you don't.

I guess I'm a little lost....Tom, who was making a personal attack on you? Does this mean we can't discuss this anymore?

The way this is widely interpret is; if you are trying to help someone and do not do something to intentionally or wrecklessly harm the person, you are immune from liability. I believe the person in the CA case was determined wreckless since there was no immediate danger (car was not on fire).

As the National Rescue Coordinator for the Lucas Oil Drag Boat Racing Series, the non-professional members of the Rescue team and I operate under the good samaritan law. The professional members (fire, EMS, law enforcement) do not, but they are covered by insurance from their respective official jobs. Of course this does not stop someone from trying to sue and is subject to interpretation at the local level. That's why I have an umbrella policy.

Skippy, Discussing liability is fine. Calling all lawyers "greasy slugs" as Marksclan did is not. Granted, some attorneys do things that I think are indefensible by any measure of sensibility or decency but lumping all of us into one big pot is not defensible either. I see suits all the time that seem meritless, but they are a small percentage of all the suits that get filed.

I have my own beefs with various groups of people, but this board is not the place for those kinds of discussions. There are plenty of other forums where people can rant all they want about whoever they want. That is not the purpose of this forum and we should keep that in mind.

I thought the "greasy slug" was referring to people who sue for ridiculous reasons, as in family who sue because someone saved their son's life. Anyways, I could be reading it wrong.

Here's what I was taught in my EMT class...

Anyone who is trained and certified to render aid must do so within the scope of their practice and training. For example, someone who carries a Red Cross basic first aid card can certainly help to control bleeding and treat for shock, but they can not intubate a person, even if they know how to do it. EMT-B's may assist people with taking their own medications (nitro or epi, for example), but they can not give them nitro or epi from a first aid kit, even though they are trained how to administer it. In theory they can not be the person administering the medication, just basically talking the person through doing it themselves. I know... keep shaking your head at all the sense that makes... most people who need assistance need it because they can't do it themselves... duh. Anyway, that makes for a huge grey area... if an EMT-B who runs in a district where their standing orders do not allow them to administer a patient's own epi-pen, but they do it anyway because the patient is not capable of doing it themselves, they would be open to the liability. It sounds rediculous, but this is common.

Some other things I've learned is this:

1) If you arrive at the scene as a designated and official member of a rescue team and you do NOT render aid to someone, nor offer to render aid, then that could be negligent. That is why EMS agencies make people who refuse care sign a release.

2) If you are an off-duty member of a rescue team and you are driving by the scene of an accident you do NOT have to respond, but you do have to consider whether you are wearing your uniform or driving an official vehicle of your agency, or in any other way identifyable as a trained member of a rescue organization. If you are identifyable and do not stop then you aren't necessarily liable, but your actions may be called into question.

3) If you do not have official training and certification, or have EXPIRED training or certification and you provide care beyond what a basic bystander would/could do, and your actions cause harm, you could be liable.

4) If you do not have official training or certification, but have a necessary intervention on hand (i.e. an epi-pen, inhaler) and use your personal experience to recognize the need for that intervention and then perform that intervention, you could be open to liability, even if you saved the person's life and there were no damages.

It's almost rediculous how saving a person's life is no longer considered the highest priority. It's no wonder most people refuse to get involved.

MNS

I have a different perspective on the whole healthcare thing -- emergency or not -- from having just been in Thailand for 2 weeks visiting my son.

There, pharmacists can prescribe. And guess what? It works. They are a civilized country and have no higher level of people dying from wrong prescriptions than we do here.

My point being that the assumptions we are basing our decisions here really need some serious re-examination.

For myself, I'm going to render aid. Should I get into a situation I'll do what in my reasonable judgement seems best for the preservation of life. If someone sues me later,so be it. It may take the violation of decent normal people by the legal system in order for change to happen. The people who started this country endured a lot more. This is how totalitarianism develops -- sanctions against the citizenry that folk understandably avoid. The gotcha is that it is a disease that gets progressively more draconian.

Utmost respect to anyone who chooses differently. There is definitely a cost to be counted.

Jim, your raising this question is fully understandable and has been helpful. You have been personally rubbed raw by events and I'm sorry for that. Not just sorry, but outraged that you lose your home and fat cats collect bonuses way beyond the level of need or reasonable reward. To continue to be a gracious person under difficult circumstances is a battle that I'm grateful to see you are continuing to wage.

I have some medical training and would stop and help someone to the best of my ability. One thing that has not been mentioned is that you don't have to give the person your name if you do help them. You also don't have to give your name to anyone involved in the rescue or to any dispatchers etc. Remain anonymous. This will lessen the likelihood of you being sued.

If they don't know who you are how are you going to be sued? Just one more reason I don't feel like signing a trail register. I also hate places that require a permit.

I don't even think I would tell the person that I've been trained.

Help them out, get them rescued, and leave.

As a friend of mine would say "Shoot, shovel, and shut up!"

-Skippy

skippy,

Do I know you? I say that all the time.

Colorado is working on HB10-1168, aka Trail Lawyer's Hypocrisy Act, that will make sure the lawyer gets a share of the medical costs as well as any damages. If health insurance becomes universal it will change the economics of personal injury law. This proposed law will protect their share of the pie.