Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rocky2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!matt From: matt@rocky2.UUCP (Matt Blaze) Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal Subject: Re: CPR, First Aid, & Liability Message-ID: <152@rocky2.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 20:07:50 EST Article-I.D.: rocky2.152 Posted: Wed Jan 29 20:07:50 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 04:31:56 EST References: <556@philabs.UUCP> <1334@panda.UUCP> <279@ihlpf.UUCP> <2495@gatech.CSNET>, <2505@gatech.CSNET> Organization: Rockefeller Univ., N.Y.C. 10021 Lines: 39 Keywords: CPR, First Aid, Good Samaritan Law, liability Xref: watmath net.med:3285 net.legal:2838 Just to add one additional comment: as I have always understood it, ARC certificicates really have no legal status at all (except when they are required by a specific state or local statute, such as a lifeguard who is required to have an ALS certificate. Few, if any, states require a certificate for a private citizen who comes to the aid of an accident victim as far as I know). In particular, a CPR certificate is not a "license" to perform CPR, nor is one required. The important issue is not whether the rescuer has a valid certificate, or even ever took a course, but rather that he acted within the limits of what one would expect a reasonable lay person to do. Even without specific laws to protect rescuers against lawsuits, it would be very hard to win a suit against someone who does CPR on someone who actually *needed* it. After all, a key element of a civil suit is damages. Anyone who needs CPR is clinically dead, so even with the worst rescue efforts imaginable one would be hard pressed to show that someone was damaged by the attempt. Of course, things become much less clear when someone does CPR on a person who is breathing, or a rescuer who abandons his/her efforts without being releaved by another rescuer. Similarly, in cases of severe bleeding, unless the rescuer's efforts to control the bleeding actually *increase* the bleeding (such as by submerging the wound in water), the attempt itself causes no damage, hence there is no basis for a lawsuit. None of this, of course, would apply in cases where the rescuer caused the victim's injury in the first place! @begin I am not a lawyer, nor do I even want to be. This is only my unprofessional understanding of what the law is, based on my experience as an ARC CPR instructor-trainer. @begin Nothing above should be taken as representing the opinion of the American Red Cross, or anyone else for that matter. @end @end -Matt Blaze based o