NCJ Number
176266
Journal
Law and Order Volume: 46 Issue: 12 Dated: December 1998 Pages: 81-84-86
Date Published
1998
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The use of automatic defibrillators (AEDs) by police can save the lives of people experiencing sudden cardiac arrest, involves minimal likelihood of significant liability for a police agency, and may actually avoid new liability due to failure to provide such a response.
Abstract
Responding to medical emergencies has long been one of the services police provide. Medical research has revealed that police agencies equipped with AEDs have a significant role in strengthening the chain of survival needed to reduce unnecessary deaths. An AED program stays away from the civil rights statutes, which are the usual theories on which agency liability is predicated. The worst scenario would involve analysis of police actions using the ordinary negligence standard of tort law. However, Good Samaritan laws in many States provide even more protection in that they require a showing of gross, wanton, or willful negligence. Some States have created specific bars to immunity to encourage public-access defibrillation programs. Police agencies enjoy relative safety from liability under either standard. A response by trained individuals who perform as they are trained is the best argument against a claim that a duty was breached. In addition, the question of injury presents the most significant defense to legal liability for users of AEDs. Furthermore, a 10-year history of emergency medical dispatch (EMD) programs has resulted in little liability exposure for agencies using standardized EMD protocols implemented by trained EMD personnel. Good reasons may exist for some police agencies not to provide AED services, but fear of civil liability should not be one of those reasons. Photograph