Patr8ol: the Good Samaritan act is Civil law, and as you say, is influenced by precedence etc.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/s31b.htmlThis is of course Victorian Law.
Essentially, you can do reasonable things in a
The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ("Wrongs Act") is the main legislation in Victoria governing claims for damages for personal injury (or resulting death) in Victoria, particularly in cases not involving transport accidents or work injuries.
"The Law Handbook", Fitzroy Legal Service, 2011, http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch18s01s04.php
and Doc, I'm with you on the gooey stuff on burns. I was always taught "Dont place goo on burns", with all sorts of "remedies" from butter to oils etc going around, i'd reckon the safest remote location treatment bet is Glad Wrap, cooling and transport to a Hospital that can deal with the situation. Upper Cumbuckta West bush nursing hospital is probably NOT that place (sorry if such a place exists..... making a point, not personally slandering anyone
). Thats why the RFDS exist!!!!!
amaso57: I just read the summary of the finding by the Magistrate in the case of VWA Vs Pressfast Industries Pty Ltd as sited. Pressfast were charged with failing to maintain a safe workplace because they failed to keep proper seperation between forklifts and peds and not have a first aid plan (ie no currently trained first aider). the deceased was offered/encouraged to seek medical attention by staff and on lookers and declined on several occasions, although not by a first aider (not sure why first aider would have changed the pts decision though?? ). He is quite within his rights to do so if he chooses, depsite others not thinking it smart to do so. As Patr8ol said, if he isn't a mental pt an ambulance crew can not detain him for the purposes of receiving treatment. Police will not detain a person under Sec 10 of the mental health act (Vic) on the grounds that they require medical attention and are refusing. This is not seen to fit the criteria of "a mental condition" in and of itself, although may manifest with other acute psychiatric symptoms. It is a legal right, that of Autonomy (the right to decide for one's self), and is enshirned in the Human Rights acts and charters and is a fundamental tennant of Medical practice. It is also taught in First Aid courses.
It would seem that the director of the company, in following up with the worker, and then when he observed a deterioration in his condition made arrangments for him to be seen by a Doctor. Seeking medical attention for him was diligent, and there is no critisism (although IMHO this was inadequate, as a local GP would not have been equipped to deal with the potential injuries (no xray or CT/MRI etc), and a trained First Aider
may have realised this and instead called an ambulance which could have conveyed him directly to an Emergency Department rather than to the GP, who would have then called the ambulance, thus adding in more time to the equation, which this man clearly did not have anyway
The Magistrate may have found that a "reasonable person" would consider making an appointment with a Doctor as seeking a higher level of care than that of a Paramedic. However it does not states WHEN that appointment was made for. Was it in an hour? 2 hours? The next day? All of which would have been too late for the deceased. As the Magistrates Court does not publish Court Transcipts we cant find out.
“This incident really brings home the importance of workplaces having a trained first aider on site at all times,” Mr Martin said.
Without accessing the entire finding it is hard to know, but it appears they did not even attempt to utilise the services of the first aider who's certificate was 20+yrs out of date.
“The only staff member with first aid training was certified in 1984, and wasn’t alerted until it was too late,”WorkSafe Victoria’s Strategic Programs Director Trevor Martin said.
In handing down his sentence, Magistrate Andrew Capell referred to the company’s decision not to seek help from the first aider, despite the expired certificate, as ‘outrageous’
“This incident really brings home the importance of workplaces having a trained first aider on site at all times,” Mr Martin said.
Hindsight always provides 20/20 vision. Its also easy to say now "oh they shuld have called an Ambulance straight away", however, depending on how the man presented, he may have still refused transport, and the Business would still have been prosectuted for failing to seperate forklifts and pedestrians anyway, and quite possibly for the failure to have a first aid plan (ie no trained first aiders). I"m pretty sure "just call 000" doesnt qualify as a valid first aid plan. A component of a plan? Yes. The whole plan? No. thats a whole other story...... but we digress......
