This news article that came out of California is extremely troubling.
Without knowing all the details, and without having researched the actual code in California (hey man, I have a hard time understanding the legal language... I'll happily follow most any law, just present it in a way that everyone can understand!) the story scares me.
While I was going through my EMT-B training in New Jersey, it was explained to me that although there was not a legal requirement to come give aid as a Good Samaritan, you might personally feel that you had a moral obligation to do so. If you chose to act (at least as it was explained to me), and provided care up to your level of training, and were not negligent in your care, thenyou were covered under the Good Sam laws.
That is, as an EMT-B, if I'm driving down the road and witness a car accident, outside of my jurisdiction, or when off duty, I have no obligation to stop, regardless of what kind of vehicle I'm in (ambulance included, although it looks bad for the agency you're representing). If I chose to stop, as long as I provided care up to the level of an EMT-B, was not negligent, and didn't exceed my standard of care, I would be covered. I wasn't allowed to act as an ALS provider, and start and IV, or tube somebody, but I could take C-Spine precautions, and if the equipment was available, start to package the patient.
If my brother was driving down the same road, and stopped to help, as long as he did what he felt was necessary, then he should have been covered (my brother doesn't have any sort of emergency training). Apparently, the woman in California fit into this mold, and is now being sued by her "friend." And the California Supreme Court said it can go forward.
Disgusting... just disgusting.
Posts
