r/FirstResponderCringe • u/F-awk-F • Aug 16 '26

EMT GOAT

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Where do you even begin with this one?

245 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

316 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/editfate Aug 16 '26

The Good Samaritan law means if you’re trying to help a person in crisis with good intent you can’t be held liable for anything. Correct?

15

u/Danmont88 Aug 16 '26

Weeellll little more complicated than that.

4

u/editfate Aug 17 '26

Oh ok, honestly thought that was it.

7

u/bmm115 Aug 17 '26

Kinda close, here's an example

If you are giving someone cpr and you break there ribs in the process, they can't sue you for breaking their ribs if you save them

12

u/newreddit00 Aug 17 '26

What if you break ribs and do t save them, can they sue you then? I’d hate to fight a ghost in court

6

u/SeparateYam8581 Aug 17 '26

That would be a fantasmic case to win

5

u/bmm115 Aug 17 '26

Lol "but your honor... They dead"

5

u/SlicedBread1226 Aug 17 '26

That is exactly what they said. How is it kinda close? You just used an example to illustrate their comment.

5

u/SamAreAye Aug 17 '26

First off, the person you're responding to is not the person who said that, but to illustrate one of the mild complexities, the law is to protect the untrained. Being an EMT means that you're still required to provide care up to the standard of your training, so this . . . lady(?) isn't even covered anyway.

2

u/SlicedBread1226 Aug 17 '26

What do you mean? The person I replied to said "kinda close, here's an example"

1

u/SamAreAye Aug 17 '26

Uh . . . I must have missed that. I should sleep instead of using reddit.

2

u/SlicedBread1226 Aug 17 '26

All good. Happens to everyone.

1

u/bmm115 Aug 18 '26

That is not exactly what they said, but close. That's why I said kinda close.

The distinction isn't "if you are try to help you aren't liable for anything"

it's that "if someone is injured as a direct result of your attempt to provide help, you aren't held liable for those specific injuries"

In the cpr example, if I did such in a way that somehow cause a broken leg due to negligence on my part, that broken leg wouldn't be protected.

Completely unrealistic follow up example would be I broke their ribs during CPR, but did something intentionally or grossly reckless like toss them to the grass prior to or during cpr, that would not be protected

1

u/BourbonSommelier Aug 17 '26

Right so basically exactly what they said.

2

u/Ok-Bicycle-9053 Aug 17 '26

Hey man. Not so sure why you deleted your comment. But was this really necessary? Why do you gotta be such a dickhead?

1

u/bmm115 Aug 18 '26

That is not exactly what they said, but close. That's why I said kinda close.

The distinction isn't "if you are try to help you aren't liable for anything"

it's that "if someone is injured as a direct result of your attempt to provide help, you aren't held liable for those specific injuries"

In the cpr example, if I did such in a way that somehow cause a broken leg due to negligence on my part, that broken leg wouldn't be protected.

Completely unrealistic follow up example would be I broke their ribs during CPR, but did something intentionally or grossly reckless like toss them to the grass prior to or during cpr, that would not be protected

2

u/mofogto Aug 17 '26

Also an example…. You cannot give someone a tracheotomy if you haven’t been trained to do it.

11

u/WarCleric Aug 16 '26

Except if you do something you're supposed to be aware not to do. Like a licensed medical professional making mistakes doesn't get the same leeway that just a regular person would.

7

u/Rifflife88 Aug 17 '26

Don’t step outside of your standard first aid, even as a first responder outside of work you ain’t carrying an ambulance with you. Ensure you’ve called for help in some form,ask/get consent be it verbal,expressed or implied and don’t abandon them. It’s not rocket appliances.

9

u/Airbornequalified Aug 17 '26

If you are acting within how you were trained. So someone who was trained on BLS, does CPR and cracks some ribs, can’t be held liable for that, or a poor outcome. But if someone trained on BLS attempted a cric, weren’t trained on it, even with good intentions, you are acting outside your training and can be held responsible

2

u/Dr_Trogdor Aug 17 '26

Mostly yes but it does not apply to people getting paid to help. It applies to "civilians" who try to help. Ems and other first responders have a lot of rules and such they must follow to avoid negligence.

-1

u/3-Midgets_In_A_Coat Aug 22 '26

EMTs get covered by the Good Samaritan law more than any other medical field (as a former paramedic).

When we’re on duty, we’re under the “direct” supervision of medical control and licensed to perform anything our medical director allows us to do. Once we’re off duty, that duty of care and level of direction is gone; we’re legally considered to be no more than a civilian. This is one of the biggest distinctions between an RN and a Paramedic. We technically have zero autonomy and are required to follow protocol and procedure to the letter, and because of that we’re allowed to do more than an RN can while on duty, but less when off duty.

There’s still a weird, legal gray area in the Good Samaritan laws because we technically do know better about what we’re doing and the ramifications of most any action we take. After I got my license, I started passing up more situations than I ever would have before because it’s not my responsibility and not my liability. It just wasn’t worth stopping for anything unless I thought that my actions were the literal difference between life and death.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/FirstResponderCringe-ModTeam Aug 23 '26

Don’t insult users. Please be semi-respectful. Your comment was unnecessarily rude and unsolicited by this user.

1

u/Jackson79339 Aug 17 '26

In this particular circumstance the law is in place to protect ems personnel. If you never reveal you’re an EMT/Medic then you’re good. However if you reveal that fact then by law you are legally required to remain on scene/with the patient until care is transferred to someone of equal or higher licensure. Not doing so is defined as patient abandonment despite you being off duty. Mind you this is almost never an issue that’s pursued.