A county law enforcement agency organizes and manages a team of volunteers for search and rescue. Volunteers are provided training in CPR by agency and are certified by qualifying agency on successful course completion. Qualifying agency requires defib unit training as part of CPR. While requiring volunteers to be certified with qualifying agency card, the law enforcement agency mgr has arbitrarily decided to not require defib training for volunteers.
Technically, the CPR card is invalid since AED training and testing, required for it, was not provided. If a volunteer is engaged in a County activity, and either fails to render first aid when needed, or renders it incorrectly with serious injury or death resulting, irrespective of their level or adequacy of training, are they immune from any and all liability due to the CA Good Samaritan Act?
Just as importantly, is the law enforcement agency immune from a negligence claim if their volunteer with a CPR card (signifying defib/Automatic Electronic Defibrillation (AED) unit competence) fails to render defib first aid with death resulting, or renders it with death resulting due to incompetence caused by the agency's arbitrary decision to eliminate related training required for the volunteer's CPR certification? (See CCR HSC Section 1799 series, and particularly 1799.102(a) regarding Good Samaritan law and exceptions.)
My intuition tells me that a volunteer trained by an agency and working under their control is not subject to liability for rendering emergency first aid, but that the County would be liable if injury or death results from the volunteer's actions resulting as a consequence of lack of training tied to the arbitrary decision by the County to eliminate a portion of training (AED) otherwise made a part CPR training and as a requirement for issuance by the qualifying agency of a CPR card required by the law enforcement agency of the volunteer.
Does the law enforcement agency put taxpayers in the county at risk for liabilities, connected to volunteers it supervises and utilizes to fulfill its mandates, resulting from arbitrarily gutting of a portion of training it otherwise requires, en toto, for CPR certification of its volunteers? Does it put its volunteers, denied AED training as a required part of CPR certification, at risk of negligence lawsuit in a worst-case scenario? Can such a decision to eliminate AED training, thereby technically invalidating volunteers' CPR certifications, be made with immunity from any related liability by the agency's medically-untrained manager of volunteers? Anyone out there in CA or in a state with similar Good Samaritan and strict liability/negligence laws been up against this sort of thing before?
Technically, the CPR card is invalid since AED training and testing, required for it, was not provided. If a volunteer is engaged in a County activity, and either fails to render first aid when needed, or renders it incorrectly with serious injury or death resulting, irrespective of their level or adequacy of training, are they immune from any and all liability due to the CA Good Samaritan Act?
Just as importantly, is the law enforcement agency immune from a negligence claim if their volunteer with a CPR card (signifying defib/Automatic Electronic Defibrillation (AED) unit competence) fails to render defib first aid with death resulting, or renders it with death resulting due to incompetence caused by the agency's arbitrary decision to eliminate related training required for the volunteer's CPR certification? (See CCR HSC Section 1799 series, and particularly 1799.102(a) regarding Good Samaritan law and exceptions.)
My intuition tells me that a volunteer trained by an agency and working under their control is not subject to liability for rendering emergency first aid, but that the County would be liable if injury or death results from the volunteer's actions resulting as a consequence of lack of training tied to the arbitrary decision by the County to eliminate a portion of training (AED) otherwise made a part CPR training and as a requirement for issuance by the qualifying agency of a CPR card required by the law enforcement agency of the volunteer.
Does the law enforcement agency put taxpayers in the county at risk for liabilities, connected to volunteers it supervises and utilizes to fulfill its mandates, resulting from arbitrarily gutting of a portion of training it otherwise requires, en toto, for CPR certification of its volunteers? Does it put its volunteers, denied AED training as a required part of CPR certification, at risk of negligence lawsuit in a worst-case scenario? Can such a decision to eliminate AED training, thereby technically invalidating volunteers' CPR certifications, be made with immunity from any related liability by the agency's medically-untrained manager of volunteers? Anyone out there in CA or in a state with similar Good Samaritan and strict liability/negligence laws been up against this sort of thing before?
Other Injuries: Is a County Immune from a Lawsuit Alleging Negligence in Training of Volunteers
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire