Good Samaritan Question

[EMT11KDL]

I thought this was settled (more or less) with the California Lawsuit that determined that Good Samaritan law only applied to medical patients. If its a rescue, you're not covered (unless imminent life threatening danger)?

Medical or life threat? Because Trauma would not be classified as a medical patient. and Rescue? What type of rescue... Everyone on here should be smart enough to know, I am not going to extricate someone out of a car after a MVC without proper equipment unless the car is on fire. I dont think any one of us going to be doing High Angle Rescue while off duty. I am not going to jump into a river to save a drowning victim or jump out of a helicopter to do the same (sorry had to go to the tv show trauma).

 

[DV_EMT]

Medical or life threat? Because Trauma would not be classified as a medical patient. and Rescue? What type of rescue... Everyone on here should be smart enough to know, I am not going to extricate someone out of a car after a MVC without proper equipment unless the car is on fire. I dont think any one of us going to be doing High Angle Rescue while off duty. I am not going to jump into a river to save a drowning victim or jump out of a helicopter to do the same (sorry had to go to the tv show trauma).

We'll every situation is different... If there is a trauma and any ALS is a long ways out, (45 minutes) you might consider safely extricating the patient only if its going to save their life (ie: injury that requires tournaqueting but you can't access due to vehicle damage and the patient is more than likely going to bleed out)... but thats a huge decision (and judgement call) to make.

 

[Handsome Robb]

Why would the law only apply to medical patients? I would think that we are more likely to come across a trauma patient off duty.

 

[DV_EMT]

Why would the law only apply to medical patients? I would think that we are more likely to come across a trauma patient off duty.

If I recall correctly, the term "medical" is being applied to preforming any medical treatment of a patient... thus including trauma patients. I believe the term was identifing the threat of injuring a patient who did not need to be extricated unnecessarily (that being said, a fire is a perfectly good reason to extricate because its life threatening....... if you know its a fire)

Just to clarify

 

[mycrofft]

Where is the fine line ...

...between being a prepared but unanticipated responder (i.e., off duty with your home kit weigh you and you help at an accident), or an unregulated responder (i.e., driving around with equipment in your car anticipating helping at accident scenes, maybe going as far as to buying a scanner or whatever the iphone equivalent is)?

 

[Akulahawk]

Why would the law only apply to medical patients? I would think that we are more likely to come across a trauma patient off duty.

In California, what happened was that a Good Sam rescued her friend from a wreck because she thought the care was on fire/was going to explode. It didn't and somewhere in the mix, the friend sustained a SCI. It is not known if the injury occurred during the crash or during the subsequent rescue. The friend sued and, through the course of the court case, it was found that the Good Sam law only protects people in the event of a medical problem, rescues weren't covered at all. About a month after the decision, the State Legislature revised the GS law here to specifically include rescues in the GS law, with the same limitations that a medical aid would entail.

I don't know if other states explicitly "cover" rescues, but California does.

 

[DV_EMT]

About a month after the decision, the State Legislature revised the GS law here to specifically include rescues in the GS law, with the same limitations that a medical aid would entail.

I don't know if other states explicitly "cover" rescues, but California does.

If you find this, please link it here as I didn't know that it had changed!!!

 

[Akulahawk]

If you find this, please link it here as I didn't know that it had changed!!!

The applicable H&S code used to read in part: "Health and Safety Code 1799.102 "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."

Now it reads:

1799.102. (a) No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.

and

(2) Except for those persons specified in subdivision (a), no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care or assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

You can find the full text here: http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=01001-02000&file=1799.100-1799.112

 

[DV_EMT]

Thanks!!!