Depends on the country you’re in. Some have Good Samaritan laws; some don’t.
But the truth is: you can always be sued. The only difference is in how far the lawsuit will go before it ends.
And some (for example, most of continental Europe) take it further and have a duty to assist, where if there’s no one more qualified to help you are required to do your best to assist.
the problem is you need to spend legal fees, and time to defend yourself even against a frivilous lawsuit. some people are “vexacious litigious”(legal term for sue-happy) just to drown you in legal fees.
Laws vary by location, without a location we cannot tell you an accurate answer.
Where do you live? In most countries such a case wouldn’t have a chance to end up in court.
As with similar questions, it depends on where you are.
Most places have some version of a good Samaritan coverage for such things, as long as you’re acting in good faith. But not all places do
Depends on how you cook it…
Broadly in the US you would not be liable. There are exceptions such as if help was refused or if you take payment for helping then you can be held liable. And if you do something “grossly negligent” such as breaking an arm for the heimlich then you coulr be liable as well.
I would note that breaking ribs for the Heimlich or CPR is very common if not expected even done properly so even if found liable for other reasons it’d be quite hard for them to be successful at suing you.
I once rescued somebody with the heimlich, and I can’t imagine how I could have broken a rib? I grabbed her below the ribs, pulled hard on the upper belly and the lodged object flew out in an arc.
eh if they try, just put the food back.
In CPR classes and other trainings in which I was taught the Heinrich, you are supposed to get consent from the person choking before performing the maneuver. Usually you ask clearly and loudly, and assume a nod is consent. If the person goes unconscious, consent is implied for giving CPR. Whether that is legally defendable in court if they decide to sue you after the fact, I have no idea.
I would guess that’s as much about making sure you don’t try to perform the Heimlich on someone who doesn’t actually need it, but would probably cover OP’s concern
This is absolutely the primary reason why people are taught to do this. If they’re having something like an anaphylactic reaction, heimlich could complicate things or delay care long enough they die. As a bonus, it can also help with the legal repercussions after the fact too, but that’s secondary to its role in emergency treatment.
There’s another one that’s taught in the same spirit: if someone needs an epi-pen you should put it in their hand and “help them” inject themselves. As I understand it this one does also offer useful legal protection, since very few places with Good Samaritan laws have extended them to cover administration of medication, but its primary use is establishing nonverbal consent to treatment. Either you were helping them treat themselves, or they were so weak they couldn’t prevent you from helping them thus you were helping an incapacitated person to the best of your ability.
Rest assured Dr. Henry Heimlich will sue your ass into the ground for using his name for that “maneuver.” It’s to be called the abdominal thrust maneuver.
I was told this during my first aid training. I was also told that if I’m sued, and was following the training I was provided (St John Ambulance, UK) they would cover liability. Only the training though, no tracheotomy with a biro lol. In addition, a quick search says, there has never been a successful case of suing a first aider in the UK, and the SARAH Act has further strengthened this position.
