Does having 'Rescue Diver' certification make you potentially more liable...

[Jaydubya]

I think you would be too preoccupied whilst executing an in water or underwater rescue to think of what a jury would think

But honestly, In my opinion, and being new to this, I think of every person I enter the water with as my brother or sister.
We are entering a hostile environment together.
I would never think for one second of what repercussions might follow a failed attempt at rescue.
In that moment, I will do what it takes to bring you back.
I have been a part of many rescues, two of which the diver did not make it.
I never was held responsible, admitedly the circumstances were different.
But I dont think I could get myself to act or think any different.

I find that reasonable (it's what I would do) and I bet most juries would find it reasonable as well.

 

[Lorenzoid]

During my recent certification course, my instructor discussed the several "flavors" of adult CPR currently being taught in the US, and stressed that if ever we students were to use CPR, we must make sure to use the approach taught in the certification course she was teaching us and which we would be certified to. I understood this to mean I must NOT have a lapse and use the CPR approach I was previously taught--you know, the one that essentially has become second nature to me--and I must NOT use some other CPR approach that I haven't been certified to.

Interesting interpretation. In MY course, the CPR instructor, speaking from a practical not legal perspective, told us that the most important lesson to take away from the course is to not let one's fears of "doing it wrong" prevent us from trying to use CPR in an emergency. It was his belief that case studies have shown that doing ANY type of CPR is probably better than doing nothing. He told us not to obsess over getting the count exactly right, etc.

As someone else nicely summarized it, the general rule is that although you may initially have no duty to act at all if you come across someone in need, once you voluntarily undertake to give aid, you create a duty to continue doing so up to the limits of your training/ability and so long as it doesn't endanger you or others. Whether you attempt something that exceeds your training/ability or would otherwise be "unreasonable" would ultimately be up to a jury if someone were to pursue you for alleged negligence.

My intent is to do whatever I can to give aid if I ever encounter a person in need. I will apply CPR to my best recollection of how to do it. I will not undertake, say, open heart surgery, because that exceeds my training. If it ends up badly, I will have faith that a jury will find that my CPR technique may have been sloppy and out of line with the way it's commonly taught and maybe even inappropriate given the circumstances but at least reached the threshold of "reasonable." Naive? Maybe.


It is interesting that the different state Good Samaritan statutes that people have cited here differ so much. Others can do as they please, but I do not intend to look up a locality's Good Samaritan laws before I dive there. I don't intend to let the potential legal consequences stop me from doing what I believe I should try doing. If someone goes after me for negligence, I'll just have to hope a jury agrees. Maybe it's naive, but this is my personal decision. If I am ever in a situation where I need emergency aid, I would hope that others make the same decision to act rather than not act and worry about the potential legal consequences later.

Man, has it really come to this?

 

[SeaHorse81]

My hope is that anyone who is even remotely interested will get rescue training whether or not they think they would ever step up and use it. Rescue training (which I am studying right now) will, if nothing else, make you safer and therefore less likely to ever require rescue by others. This means you are less likely to potentially endanger others, which can only be a good thing.

As to liability concerns, I suspect that when the moment of truth arrives, there are people who will step into the breach whether or not they have training, and people who will stay off to the side no matter how much training they have. I also think many of us won't know which of those groups we're in until the moment comes. Better to have the training than not, I think, because you just never know.

 

[rx7diver]

In MY course, the CPR instructor ... told us that the most important lesson to take away from the course is to not let one's fears of "doing it wrong" prevent us from trying to use CPR in an emergency. It was his belief that case studies have shown that doing ANY type of CPR is probably better than doing nothing. He told us not to obsess over getting the count exactly right, etc.

This, too, was stressed in my recent CPR course...

 

[EastEndDiver]

As divers we have to realize that when something bad happens usually the only help we have are the other divers around us, we are not on a busy street where other people who might be more experienced will be coming and going. WE only have each other at that point and I would hope that the others would help in any way possible ,to me it is a moral obligation without a thought of any legal ramifications.

 

[Cixelsyd]

The essential thing to remember is that, in general, you have no duty to rescue but once you start you must act as a jury would consider reasonable- i.e. within the scope of your training and not abandoning the rescue attempt as long as it wa safe for you to continue.

This is the general rule in most common law countries (i.e. Britain and former British colonies like the US). Continental Europe and other civil law countries often create such duties though.

Also, for those of you who think that not showing your card will shield you somehow, trust me, lawyers have tools to find that out. The easiest way for me to get that information is to simply send you a discovery request asking you what level certification you have, and believe me, if I'm suing you based on your actions during a rescue attempt, that's a no-brainer question to ask.

 

[Lorenzoid]

This, too, was stressed in my recent CPR course...

You mean your instructor told you two different things in the same class? Because I was replying to YOUR post, where I thought you said the opposite: "I understood this to mean I must NOT have a lapse and use the CPR approach I was previously taught."

So you understood your instructor to say that you "must NOT" use the CPR technique you were previously taught, while also telling you that applying any CPR technique is probably better than doing no CPR at all? I'm confused.

 

[rx7diver]

You mean your instructor told you two different things in the same class?

Yes, two different (and apparently conflicting) messages. I'm almost certain this was deliberate.

Lorenzoid,

I hope during a scuba emergency I will resolve this "moral dilemma" by attempting to apply, to the best of my ability, the CPR approach I was recently certified to, while being confident that if I should not get it exactly correct, I will still be doing at least some good.

Safe Diving,

Ronald

 

[DivemasterDennis]

NWGratefuldiver got it right. I am a lawyer, and a dive professional. A certified and insured dive professional has a standard of care and a duty to act that amateur divers do not. As a rescue diver, you are an amateur diver. You have been trained to respond to certain situations involving yourself and perhaps a buddy. You have not been trained medically (beyond efr or the equivalent). HOWEVER, if you choose to act, you must act reasonably.
Here is the bottom line: If someone needs help, and you feel competent to help without endangering yourself, then help without fear of consequence.
DivemasterDennis

 

[Lorenzoid]

Yes, two different (and apparently conflicting) messages. I'm almost certain this was deliberate.

Wonderful. So now we not only have students afraid to act because of potential liability, but instructors afraid to give a single, clear message because of potential liability (or at least that would be my guess why the instructor would deliberately send two conflicting messages).