Why? Because no one, not even a community first responder, has been successfully sued for assisting someone in an emergency. The proof is in the pudding, you might say.
The Resuscitation Council (UK) states in its published guidelines on resuscitation, for example, that:
“A trained responder, such as a first aider, would not be expected to employ the same standard of care as a healthcare professional. Liability would only arise if the standard of care employed fell below what could reasonably be expected of a responsible person in the rescuer’s position. If an action were brought, the court would be likely to take into consideration the fact that the trained responder had a skill (having been trained in resuscitation) but would also acknowledge the fact that the rescuer was a volunteer and not a healthcare professional. If the procedure were performed correctly and in accordance with current first aid practice and guidelines, it’s unlikely that a successful claim for negligence could be brought.”
For some, reluctance to assist in a medical emergency for fear of being sued is a genuine concern. But it’s a fear-based largely on the erroneous assumption that we live in a compensation culture.
But we don’t, at least according to James Hand, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Plymouth. James Hand investigated the extent to which the so-called compensation culture existed in his study, The Compensation Culture: Cliché or Cause for Concern? His study concluded that:
“The Press and some politicians would lead us to believe that we, in the UK, are in the midst of a compensation culture and facing the prospect of slipping down the slope toward American-style litigiousness. If we take the concept of a ‘compensation culture’ as one which involves an increase in claims over recent times caused by people’s increased willingness to sue, then this is disproved by recent studies, with regard to personal injuries, which show that claims have actually fallen during the period in which the ‘compensation culture’ has attracted much popular, and derisive, debate.”
DFA has not had a single claim against a member in almost ten years of operation. The extent to which a claim is unlikely is best summarised by DFA’s experience with the insurance industry. As part of the DFA development process, we examined the need to purchase medical negligence insurance to cover the possibility of a DFA member being sued for negligence.
After careful consideration, we concluded that since no one had ever been successfully sued for negligence for assisting in an emergency, there seemed little point in insuring against such an event. However, we further considered that an action against a member was theoretically possible and that DFA should ensure the member was provided with a legal defence.
We, therefore, acquired legal expenses insurance with one of the UK’s leading providers. However, at the policy renewal anniversary, we were told that the policy could not be renewed. The insurer told us that their compliance department had considered that a claim was so unlikely that the policy was of no practical value, and further sale of the policy put them at risk of being guilty of mis-selling!
Liability is not a roadblock and shouldn’t stand in the way of anyone wanting to train and become a DFA member. But don’t take our word for it; listen to what barrister and former Minister Lord Faulks says.