2

This is inspired by the answer to this question: Is there a legal risk in giving emergency first aid?

Let's say that an emergency happens and someone is physically injured and needs immediate medical assistance. There are two people present, one is a normal bystander who is already moving to aid the injured party. The other is an EMT with training and skills that would usually make him far better suited to provide aid, but the EMT is currently legally impaired, lets go with the obvious option and say he is mildly intoxicated.

The untrained bystander intends to help as best as he can, but risks making matters worse in this particular situation. Good Samaritan laws protect him if he does make things worse so long as he acted in a manner a 'reasonable person' could be expected to have acted in.

The EMT would usually be held to a much higher standard since a "reasonable EMT" is expected to be more capable of providing aid without making matters worse than a bystander. However, in his impaired state, this EMT is not as capable as he usually would and may still risk making matters worse if he tries to render aid while impaired. The EMT intervenes judging that that even in his partially impaired state he is still more capable of rendering aid than a bystander.

I'm wondering how the good Samaritan laws would apply to the EMT he ultimately did more harm than good, acting counter to his 'duty' to the injured party. If the mistake was one that a non-impaired EMT shouldn't make would this EMT face repercussions due to his impaired state?

Would it matter how big the mistake was? For instance,e if the EMT causes some harm, but it's deemed likely that the bystander would have caused a greater harm acting than the impaired EMT would, would he be protected as a good Samaritan? If it's deemed likely that the sober bystander would have done less harm rendering aid than the impaired EMT is the EMT now at legal risk for misjudging the degree of his impairment?

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80
dsollen
  • 10,179
  • 7
  • 59
  • 116

1 Answers1

4

Scenario 1: the intoxicated bystander is the most skilled bystander

Bystanders are generally under no duty to act. Whether they are skilled or better skilled than other bystanders is irrelevant. They will not incur any liability for failing to act. If an intoxicated bystander voluntarily decides to act and makes the situation worse because of this, they are negligent (East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another [1940]).

The above answers the title question. However, the body of your post specifically asks the question for an EMT (who may have a greater duty of care than a typical bystander). As you mention in the post, professionals exercising a special skill are generally held to the standard of a reasonably competent person within their profession​ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]).

I will divide the remainder of this answer into two parts. The first will deal with the case where the EMT is on-duty (which has a fairly uncontroversial answer). The second will deal with the case where the EMT is off-duty (which is not completely settled).

Scenario 2: the intoxicated bystander is an on-duty EMT

If the EMT in your question is on-duty, the answer is fairly straightforward. Although a definitive answer will depend on the facts, the EMT will likely have a contractual duty to act (this is an exception to the first line of scenario 1). In intervening, the EMT will be held to the standards of a "reasonable EMT", not a "reasonable equally-intoxicated EMT" (Nettleship v Weston [1971]; and Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987]).

Even if the EMT’s intervention resulted in less harm than the bystander might have caused, that does not excuse liability. The courts assess whether the EMT’s conduct met the required standard of care, not whether it was better than an untrained rescuer’s efforts.

Scenario 3: the intoxicated bystander is an off-duty EMT

If the EMT is off-duty, then the law is less clear. However, what is clear is that the general rule will apply, and they have no duty to act. If they choose to intervene, the standard of care they are expected to provide will depend heavily on the exact facts of the case. In fact, only recently, on 11 Feb 2025, this issue was discussed in O’Neill v Scottish Ambulance Service Board [2025] CSOH 17:

on reflection, it seems to me to be very difficult to answer ... without some consideration of the circumstances in which a medically qualified bystander assumes a duty of care to the member of the public and the scope of any such duty assumed ...

In this particular case, this issue was not explored in depth as it was not essential to decide the case. However, this clarifies the need for the courts to consider the facts of the individual case at hand in detail before deciding one way or the other. As your question does not go into these facts, it is impossible to say what would happen.

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80