Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Note I said without EXPECTATION of.....

Not to nitpick but you actually said both. It doesn't matter if there was an expectation or not, if you accept it you have received remuneration.

Edit to add the quote: "All state as long as you are performing without remuneration or EXPECTATION of remuneration you are covered."

Edited by ERDoc
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

More useful to this thread is the understanding that untrained people cannot be expected to know that there are differences between a trainer AED and a working one. Institutions just don't get it whe

Yes I did say both, was not implying I didn't...was trying to focus on the second part of that statement as the first one is obviously an issue. Just discussing here for the heck of it, not because i think I am right or a legal eagle. :)

But the way the second part is worded, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation...mostly the fact that if I acted without expecting remuneration, then I am good to go and covered. If I accept something after the fact, this is not a disqualifier as I acted in the person's best interest without the expectation of remuneration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I got you. The problem is, once you accept it you have been remunerated. If you are offered and decline, then you should still be covered because you have not received any thing. I'm not saying I am a legal expert either. Honestly, this whole thing is a huge gray area from my understanding. There is very little presendence and a hodgepodge of laws. Do you go by the law of the state you left, are going to or were over at the beginning or the end of your involvement? I don't think there is a clear cut answer currently. It is fun with the mental exerise though, so keep it coming.

Would you say you are covered by the good sam laws if you stop at an mva and help but the family is so greatful that they give you $100 after the fact?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am going to put this question to someone in publishing, who has medical/legal training, as in a paramedic with a license to practice law.


or at least ask an instructor at the FDNY EMS Academy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a semi good friend who practices EMS law in Missouri. I think I will put it to him as well. He's represented many of the largest EMS systems in the Missouri area. If anyone will know what Missouri law says, he will.

This is really a question that begs to be answered.

I'll let you know what this guy says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, I sent an E-Mail to Joe F, an Instructor-Coordinator at the FDNY EMS Command Academy. What follows is my original e-mail, followed by his response.


As you probably know, I post a lot on EMT City (EMTCity.com). The following medical/legal discussion came up, and I'd like some of your input, which I'd then put on line, without your last name attached, of course.

Please advise if "Good Sam" is:

1) along the lines of doing the deed "Without expectation of reimbursement",

2) considered null and void if a third party (airline, tour bus company, family and/or friends of a victim), without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good Sam" provider,

3) considered null and void if the victim, without being asked to do so, offer product and/or service to the "Good Sam" provider,

4) considered null and void if the "Good Sam" decides to accept the offer of product and/or service, AFTER doing the deed


If there is something specific on the books, alert me to it, and I'll also include that.

Thanks in advance.

Richard B

Hey Rich

Ok here goes ! When we talk about the Good Samaritan Law pertaining to helping someone who needs assistance, let get this application of the term " Good Sam Law"clarified. This Law varies in each state its is designed to provide limited legal protection for citizens and some health care providers when they are administering care.

I found several references and heres another explanation. Passerby in most states are not required by law to stop and render medical assistance to those in need unless there is the preexisting duty to act. For this reason all states now have specific laws to encourage passerby to stop and render care and assist those in need of medical attention. Good Samaritan laws encourage regardless of training to stop and provide assistance without the fear of being held civilly liable for anything they do or not do while caring for the victim . Good Samaritan laws protect those who in good faith not for compensation render care for those in need. The reality is that lawsuits involving passerby who render care are quite rare.

wwwweeeew got it

Joe F

FDNY Instructor Coordinator

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...