Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EMT on your job: protected by scope of practice, standard of care, work SOPs, liability insurance of you have it.

Good Samaritan law: only applies off duty and covers you for lawsuits by the person you are helping. Mostly intended to prevent "he helped me but broke my neck" lawsuits and "he's a paramedic so he should have done better even though he didn't have his ambulance handy" lawsuits.

Platuan4th wrote:

Polonius wrote:Good Samaritan laws protect a person from civil liability for any damages occuring while they attempt to help somebody outside of the scope of their employment.

Yes, and no.

EMTs and Paramedics are protected by the Good Samaritan law only off duty. If you attempt to help someone outside of the scope of your employment ON duty, say, an EMT doing something only a Paramedic is allowed to do like a tracheotomy, you're legally and civilly responsible and Good Samaritan laws mean squat. They mostly exist to protect lay people, not professionals(at least according to the paramedics who taught my EMT courses).

That's a very good point. I should have said course of their duties instead of scope.

Kinda reminds me of when I worked as a police dispatcher for a while, a few years back (2003-4 or so). We had to take a mandatory CPR class, even though we were considered private contractors. There were real cops in the class too, and I remember the instructor saying all police officers have a "duty to perform" in the event of an emergency 24/7 weather they're on the clock or not, if it'll save someone's life. They never once mentioned having to call 911 first, or radio it in first. You help first and call it in as soon as you're able.

Us non-cops had to call in first and then "help if you are comfortable with your abilities"

Something llike this came up here in Vancouver a while back. A private security guard saw someone breaking into a car that was parked on the street in front of the site he was guarding. Security guard apprehended the car thief, called for the police to come pick him up, and was promptly fired because he left his site to stop a crime in progress that was taking place in front of his site.

Exact same conflict: abandoned his post to 'do the right thing', and was fired by the private company because he abandoned his post (if only by eight to ten feet).

He was hired by another security company the day after the story was published, but it still exemplifies the problem of conflicts of interest.

Eh, I don't see a conflict of interest, not a real one. If you see someone who needs life-or-death help, like a drowning man, and you're uniquely qualified to assist (like hypothetically being a lifeguard); then as a human being you have a responsibility to save a life. That's what being a man means (I can't think of an equivalent non-sexist statement, but you know what I mean).

I'd rather not keep my job and not be able to live with myself. Besides, lets not pretend here for even a minute that now that his employer has been internet-shamed he won't get his job back, or a better offer somewhere else. Call it internet-fueled karma.

Of course, he was at fault, and his job was free to reprimand him in a way that was less stupid and avoid this whole situation.


The security guard situation is a little different. I'm not sure I'd risk my job (and my family's financial security) to protect property.

dogma wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Any person who watches someone die because they were 5 feet out of range doesn't deserve to look at himself in the mirror in the morning.

Why should someone care about you more than their financial well being?

Because as a culture we regard an individual's life as important.
You may not, but most people do.

There is culture.

And then there is corporate culture.

Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

d-usa wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

Does that make dogs people?

Platuan4th wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

Does that make dogs people?

I have known dogs that are better people than some of the people I know

I think there's a federal law somewhere for law enforcement/military personnel to render assistant

Testify wrote:
Because as a culture we regard an individual's life as important.
You may not, but most people do.

Sure, we find individual lives important. Individuals we call mom, dad, sister, brother, friend, etc.

But the rest? Nah, statistics don't bear out the notion that they're important.

I mean, how much money did you give to cancer research this year? Probably less than you could have.

There's no point blaming the company, it did what a lot of companies will do in that situation. Don't forget we don't know why that area of beach was unprotected - was it prone to rip tides, or was there only enough funding to adequately cover one region of beach. We don't know, and either way the company is right to be conscious of setting a precedent that it will go into the unguarded water to save people, and then building an understanding that it is okay to enter the unguarded water - that is not properly protected, and may have dangerous rip tides.

The point is that when a system produces a terrible result like this you change the system. You examine if a private company, and the inability to legislate them from civil liability, might instead be replaced by a government body that can be granted better legal protection. Or you consider that perhaps a flat out ban on swimming in unprotected areas might be better than just leaving the area unprotected.

But the point is that picking a group and saying 'they're bad' does feth all. Every party just acts according to the system, so when things aren't working you fix the system.

dogma wrote:Why should someone care about you more than their financial well being?

It's called empathy. It doesn't need to be rationally constructed, it's just something people have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I mean, how much money did you give to cancer research this year? Probably less than you could have.

Yes, but people gave, even when they, or people they know had cancer (and even if they did have cancer, any funding they gave isn't going to go from research to discovery in the timespan of their treatment).

Which means the lives and well being of others is an important thing. Obviously it is not the most important thing, or else we'd forgo our big screen tvs and warhammer armies to give all our spare money to cancer research and other charities, but it remains an important thing none the less.

d-usa wrote:I have known dogs that are better people than some of the people I know

So does Frazzled

d-usa wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

Does that make dogs people?

I have known dogs that are better people than some of the people I know

Your average dog is a better person than 90% of the people on this planet, imo.

Maelstrom808 wrote:Your average dog is a better person than 90% of the people on this planet, imo.

Met 90% of the people on the planet and a reasonable sample population of dogs, have you?

I can understand the employers fear of litigation but that could be covered by distancing themselves from the employees work.

If a lifeguard practices outside of his jurisdiction all liability falls on the lifeguard. He left the premises covered, thats enough.

If someone had an accident in a street and a first aider in a local shop rushed out to help and someone fethed up, the shop is not liable. This is no different.

Most states have a "Good Samuritan" Law

Jihadin wrote:Most states have a "Good Samuritan" Law

Does that include Florida?

Even if it doesnt, where is the employers liability for actions taken outside their legal purview by individuals working outside their professional remit.

Orlanth wrote:
Even if it doesnt, where is the employers liability for actions taken outside their legal purview by individuals working outside their professional remit.

They're liable to their employer. The beach owner employs a lifeguard service, not lifeguards. The owner can sue the guard provider for dereliction if an employee breaches contract.

There's also a possibility that the guards aren't covered by Good Samaritan laws, depending on how they were trained.

dogma wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Any person who watches someone die because they were 5 feet out of range doesn't deserve to look at himself in the mirror in the morning.

Why should someone care about you more than their financial well being?

Okay, hypothetical situation-if you were swimming 5 feet outside of the ropes, would you want the lifeguard to save your life or watch you drown? He did the right thing. No decent human being can claim otherwise. And yes, I just claimed that anyone who disagrees with me is less than a decent human being. If humans were the species we could be, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place-because the guy would be a hero and keep his job. And of course, everyone would agree he was a decent guy. But there are less than decent people in this world, so the guy loses his job and some people think he shouldn't have saved a guy's life. Pathetic.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Okay, hypothetical situation-if you were swimming 5 feet outside of the ropes, would you want the lifeguard to save your life or watch you drown?

Of course I would want him to save my life, it is my life after all, but if it isn't my life I'm less invested; or rather not invested.

timetowaste85 wrote:
He did the right thing.

Would it be the right thing if losing his job meant his kids couldn't eat for a day?

timetowaste85 wrote:
No decent human being can claim otherwise. And yes, I just claimed that anyone who disagrees with me is less than a decent human being.

You seem to be assuming we all want to be decent human beings.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Even if it doesnt, where is the employers liability for actions taken outside their legal purview by individuals working outside their professional remit.

They're liable to their employer. The beach owner employs a lifeguard service, not lifeguards. The owner can sue the guard provider for dereliction if an employee breaches contract.

Agreed that employees are liable to their employer, but that is different from employers corporate liability.
That doesn't account as to why the company would discipline the lifeguard, which can only be rationalised as a matter of self protection.

dogma wrote:
There's also a possibility that the guards aren't covered by Good Samaritan laws, depending on how they were trained.

I pass no comment on that, as it depends on the wording of the local legislation who is able to claim to be a 'Good Samaritan' and when.

Orlanth wrote:
Agreed that employees are liable to their employer, but that is different from employers corporate liability.
That doesn't account as to why the company would discipline the lifeguard, which can only be rationalised as a matter of self protection.

Sure it does. The employee is liable to the employer, and the employer is liable to the contracting body (beach owner). If an employee of the employer does something out of contract with the contracting body, the contractor is liable for that breach. It gets even worse if you start considering liability insurance.

I love when people in modern society get all shocked and outraged when then run into bureaucracy in action. I mean really, I went into the army right out of high school, so I got a crash course; but is there some significant sector of the world that just never has to deal with it?

It's not like I enjoy bureaucracy, but it is the somewhat odious foundation of modern, lawful society.

Bromsy wrote:I love when people in modern society get all shocked and outraged when then run into bureaucracy in action. I mean really, I went into the army right out of high school, so I got a crash course; but is there some significant sector of the world that just never has to deal with it?

It's not like I enjoy bureaucracy, but it is the somewhat odious foundation of modern, lawful society.

I'm more puzzled by the response that because the system grinds in one particular direction then that's it, that's how it has to be and there's no point questioning it.

I mean seriously, when contracting services out to private companies causes things like this to happen... stop contracting out those services. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Well, at least now we know that being a lifeguard for a private contractor sucks hairy donkey balls.

I mean, my sister had the same job at our public beach and got paid exactly double the amount this dude was getting.

And I wouldn't be surprised if this would end up getting him a better job. There's still a few decent human beings out there... some are bound to be hiring...

I have a better question.

Why was only one out of three lifeguards on duty at the time actually patrolling? The other two were on the phone.

What SHOULD have happened is the guy begins running, calls in that he is rescuing someone, and one or both of the other two drop what they're doing and patrol the beach. But asking private companies for competence in writing rules for life or death situations is like asking Biccat to vote for Obama.

d-usa wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

I really need to start lobbying my congressmen for this to happen.

Maelstrom808 wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:Corporations are people my friend.... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

I believe that corporations are people as soon as Texas hands out the death penalty to one.

Does that make dogs people?

I have known dogs that are better people than some of the people I know

Your average dog is a better person than 90% of the people on this planet, imo.

Team Wiener Dog accepts this as a universal truth.