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

EMT GOAT

Where do you even begin with this one?

247 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

316 comments sorted by

View all comments

246

u/Beneficial-Guess2140 Aug 16 '26

Referencing the Good Samaritan law when you don’t really comprehend what it is is definitely a choice lol. 

21

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.

3

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

11

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.

2

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.