Good Samaritan Laws Protect AED Users
The notion of lay rescuers defibrillating the heart seems unusual to most people. Due to TV programs such as "ER" and "Rescue 911" defibrillation is often identified as a skill provided by highly trained medical personnel. Fear of lawsuits often creates a barrier to early defibrillation programs. The use of AEDs by lay rescuers is now permitted in all 50 states (External Link) and includes "Good Samaritan" protection to those who take action in an emergency. Good Samaritan Laws typically protect the rescuer, the owner of the device, and the medical director who oversees the program.
Federal Good Samaritan AED Law
Cardiac Arrest Survival Act of 2000
SEC. 404. GOOD SAMARITAN PROTECTIONS REGARDING EMERGENCY USE OF AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS.
Part B of title II of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by section 403, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘LIABILITY REGARDING EMERGENCY USE OF AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS
‘‘SEC. 248. (a) GOOD SAMARITAN PROTECTIONS REGARDING AEDS.—Except as provided in subsection (b), any person who uses or attempts to use an automated external defibrillator device on a victim of a perceived medical emergency is immune from civil liability for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use of such device; and in addition, any person who acquired the device is immune from such liability, if the harm was not due to the failure of such acquirer of the device—
‘‘(1) to notify local emergency response personnel or other appropriate entities of the most recent placement of the device within a reasonable period of time after the device was placed;
‘‘(2) to properly maintain and test the device; or
‘‘(3) to provide appropriate training in the use of the device to an employee or agent of the acquirer when the employee or agent was the person who used the device on the victim, except that such requirement of training does not apply if—
‘‘(A) the employee or agent was not an employee or agent who would have been reasonably expected to use the device; or
‘‘(B) the period of time elapsing between the engagement of the person as an employee or agent and the occurrence of the harm (or between the acquisition of the device and the occurrence of the harm, in any case in which the device was acquired after such engagement of the person) was not a reasonably sufficient period in which to provide the training.
 |
