2 ms·

I don't know about that. I don't know how the people who told you that can be sure. Also you aren't really talking about criminal convictions but rather, civil

by barking 10y ago

I don't know about that. I don't know how the people who told you that can be sure. Also you aren't really talking about criminal convictions but rather, civil actions which may never end up in front of a judge except to finalise things. These things can take years and you're dealing with no foal, no fee lawyers. Medical litigation can be an incredibly stressful situation and commonly there are coached clients who will look people in the eye and tell outright lies. These type of scummy lawyers won't go after joe soaps from whom nothing can be recovered. Also as a doctor on a flight, can you be sure that your insurer will cover you for your work outside the jurisdiction for which you're insured?

Xylakant 10y ago
In germany all emergency aid is privileged in the sense that the law bars any suit against you (except probably purposefully causing damages and injury) and all insurance claims are covered by the Berufsgenossenschaft (sort of a public insurance for anything work-related). I'd expect that many jurisdictions have similar laws since that just makes sense from the view of the society.
- barking 10y ago
  No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of day and can be fixed. Germany commonly seems to get a lot of things right.
  - patrickdavey 10y ago
    "no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
    - freddyc 10y ago
      I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
        patrickdavey 10y ago
        I don't know the exact details, but yes, your income is covered up to some percentage, I'm not sure exactly what (80% springs to mind but I'm not certain - though Wikipedia suggests it's about right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... )
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    Assuming no fault is something you want in a lot of places. For example the general rule for all emergency services (that is police, fire brigade etc.) is that unless you deliberately place a fake call, you're generally not held liable. The reasoning is that all emergency services would prefer to be notified earlier rather than later (for example for smoke rather than a full blown fire) and holding the caller liable for false alarms provides a strong incentive against that. So all in all, false alarms are considered something that the community/society needs to bear in return for peoples willingness to help/notify.
    - 7402 10y ago
      Although (in the US), many cities will bill you for ambulance service. If things work out ideally, your insurance will then pay the ambulance fee. There are also cities that charge fees for sending fire trucks to vehicle fires and accidents if non-residents are involved.
EliRivers 10y ago
That nobody has been sued for this in the UK does appear to be a common belief amongst professional organisations. "Despite the fact that no-one in the UK has been sued for providing first aid, it is a common fear that we’re regularly asked about." - Joe Mulligan, British Red Cross, 2015 "Although potential legal liability arising from good samaritan acts is something about which we're regularly asked by healthcare professionals, in practice we have never encountered a UK doctor, paramedic, nurse or other healthcare professional being sued after providing this kind of emergency assistance." - Shoosmiths, a major UK law firm that I have heard described as "Ambulance Chasers". It seems to be common in the US for people to get sued for helping. Not so much in the UK, and following the 2105 SARAH act, which creates additional protections for such people, now even less likely.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Devon Air Ambulance used to tell a story, possibly apocryphal, about a callout to the middle of Dartmoor. In the course of treating a woman they had to cut off her cashmere top. After the incident they received a demand from the woman to pay for the damage done to her top, valued at several hundred pounds. They replied that they would of course pay if she would reimburse them for the cost of the flight - enclosing a bill for £10,000. Answer came there none.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    I do know that sometimes people do seek to start legal proceedings against emergency services. I worked with a fireman once who told me of a lady who wanted to start legal proceedings for some kind of assault based on how a fireman picked her up to carry her out of a building. Again, came to nothing. In this day and age, if we cannot find any UK instance of someone being sued for providing first aid, I think we can label it "urban myth". Maybe some obsessive HN reader will find one for us :)
    - DanBC 10y ago
      http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ > The most important thing to remember is that to date, no one in the UK has ever been sued for administering life-saving First Aid. But also: http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_status_of_those_who_provide_first_aid.pdf http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_s... > There have been some cases in the UK where a claim has been brought against a ‘rescuer’, although there have been no reported cases in court where a casualty has successfully sued someone. > • Out-of-court settlements are more common and go unreported, so it is likely that some claims against a rescuer have been ‘successful’, but these will have gone unreported. > • It should be noted that even if a first aider is successful in defending himself against a claim, it is unlikely that he will be able to recover the full legal costs in defending himself. In civil litigation, it is unusual for a court to award the successful party more than 80% of their costs and it’s possible that an accusation can cost tens of thousands of pounds to defend. > • In some instances it can be less expensive to settle a claim out of court than to defend it. It is not uncommon for insurers to settle claims even when the defendant was innocent, as this is the least expensive and least risky option.

by barking 10y ago

Xylakant 10y ago

In germany all emergency aid is privileged in the sense that the law bars any suit against you (except probably purposefully causing damages and injury) and all insurance claims are covered by the Berufsgenossenschaft (sort of a public insurance for anything work-related). I'd expect that many jurisdictions have similar laws since that just makes sense from the view of the society.

barking 10y ago
No fault insurance is something that a lot of people would like to see in places where it's not. It allows for an environment where problems see the light of day and can be fixed. Germany commonly seems to get a lot of things right.
- patrickdavey 10y ago
  "no fault insurance" kinda sounds like what we have in New Zealand with ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). Everyone contributes a bit into it through tax, but the flip side is that _everyone_ on New Zealand soil (not just citizens) is covered for accident related issues. For example, I was hiking (or tramping as it's called in NZ) with a foreign friend visiting. They were unlucky and broke an ankle. We called the police, a helicopter was dispatched, picked her up, brought her to the hospital and fixed the ankle up. Zero cost to her. One of the many upsides is that it's quite difficult to sue for personal injuries in NZ - as ACC basically covers the costs (or at least, that's my understanding anyway) Sure there are downsides to any system, and some people do fall through the cracks of ACC, but on balance, I think it's one of the best things about NZ (besides the nice relaxed atmosphere and killer scenery)
  - freddyc 10y ago
    I was reading about tort reform once and stumbled upon NZ's ACC concept and was staggered by its effectiveness. I suspect its success is due in part to NZ's population size, but any system that ensures all accident related issues are covered AND for the most part renders the civil courts redundant for personal injury claims is pretty phenomenal. I don't have a source for this, but I also remember reading that the ACC is now one of NZ's largest institutional investors with something like $30bn under management!
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      Does it cover loss of income and other consequential losses from the injury? If person A's negligence causes the loss of arm of person B, once person B is out of danger of dying and the acute injuries have healed, person B still has on-going harm from person A. Suppose person B was a surgeon and lost their dominant arm/hand. Is that loss of income covered by ACC, via suing person A, or "too bad, so sad"?
      - patrickdavey 10y ago
        I don't know the exact details, but yes, your income is covered up to some percentage, I'm not sure exactly what (80% springs to mind but I'm not certain - though Wikipedia suggests it's about right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation#Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporat... )
- Xylakant 10y ago
  Assuming no fault is something you want in a lot of places. For example the general rule for all emergency services (that is police, fire brigade etc.) is that unless you deliberately place a fake call, you're generally not held liable. The reasoning is that all emergency services would prefer to be notified earlier rather than later (for example for smoke rather than a full blown fire) and holding the caller liable for false alarms provides a strong incentive against that. So all in all, false alarms are considered something that the community/society needs to bear in return for peoples willingness to help/notify.
  - 7402 10y ago
    Although (in the US), many cities will bill you for ambulance service. If things work out ideally, your insurance will then pay the ambulance fee. There are also cities that charge fees for sending fire trucks to vehicle fires and accidents if non-residents are involved.

EliRivers 10y ago

That nobody has been sued for this in the UK does appear to be a common belief amongst professional organisations. "Despite the fact that no-one in the UK has been sued for providing first aid, it is a common fear that we’re regularly asked about." - Joe Mulligan, British Red Cross, 2015 "Although potential legal liability arising from good samaritan acts is something about which we're regularly asked by healthcare professionals, in practice we have never encountered a UK doctor, paramedic, nurse or other healthcare professional being sued after providing this kind of emergency assistance." - Shoosmiths, a major UK law firm that I have heard described as "Ambulance Chasers". It seems to be common in the US for people to get sued for helping. Not so much in the UK, and following the 2105 SARAH act, which creates additional protections for such people, now even less likely.

cmdkeen 10y ago
Devon Air Ambulance used to tell a story, possibly apocryphal, about a callout to the middle of Dartmoor. In the course of treating a woman they had to cut off her cashmere top. After the incident they received a demand from the woman to pay for the damage done to her top, valued at several hundred pounds. They replied that they would of course pay if she would reimburse them for the cost of the flight - enclosing a bill for £10,000. Answer came there none.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  I do know that sometimes people do seek to start legal proceedings against emergency services. I worked with a fireman once who told me of a lady who wanted to start legal proceedings for some kind of assault based on how a fireman picked her up to carry her out of a building. Again, came to nothing. In this day and age, if we cannot find any UK instance of someone being sued for providing first aid, I think we can label it "urban myth". Maybe some obsessive HN reader will find one for us :)
  - DanBC 10y ago
    http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/dutyofcare/ > The most important thing to remember is that to date, no one in the UK has ever been sued for administering life-saving First Aid. But also: http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_status_of_those_who_provide_first_aid.pdf http://www.sa-cni.org.uk/uploads/4/9/5/4/4954631/the_legal_s... > There have been some cases in the UK where a claim has been brought against a ‘rescuer’, although there have been no reported cases in court where a casualty has successfully sued someone. > • Out-of-court settlements are more common and go unreported, so it is likely that some claims against a rescuer have been ‘successful’, but these will have gone unreported. > • It should be noted that even if a first aider is successful in defending himself against a claim, it is unlikely that he will be able to recover the full legal costs in defending himself. In civil litigation, it is unusual for a court to award the successful party more than 80% of their costs and it’s possible that an accusation can cost tens of thousands of pounds to defend. > • In some instances it can be less expensive to settle a claim out of court than to defend it. It is not uncommon for insurers to settle claims even when the defendant was innocent, as this is the least expensive and least risky option.