TexasCHLforum.com

This semester in school I am taking a first aid class as a PE credit. In this class, I learned that there is a law stating (not sure on the proper wording) that if you make an honest attempt to save someone, and you do everything correctly and to the best of your ability, and you are certified, then no matter what happens (for example they die because of you, you make them worse, you break bones during CPR, etc) you cannot be sued.

So if this is a law, why cant there be a law stating that if you are truly in danger, and as a last resort in self defense you have to kill or even hurt someone, you cannot be sued?? I have heard horrer stores of a CHL'er being sued tens of thousands of dollars civily when they are 100% in the right and they did nothing wrong to cause the situation. Honestly, I hate to say this, but my number one fear of shooting someone is not having to take someones life, but it is being sued (not that I want to take someone's life)

What is everyone's thoughts on that?

Good Samaritian Laws is what you are looking for. Google or doodle it.

Jungle Work

Tahoe132 wrote:This semester in school I am taking a first aid class as a PE credit. In this class, I learned that there is a law stating (not sure on the proper wording) that if you make an honest attempt to save someone, and you do everything correctly and to the best of your ability, and you are certified, then no matter what happens (for example they die because of you, you make them worse, you break bones during CPR, etc) you cannot be sued.

So if this is a law, why cant there be a law stating that if you are truly in danger, and as a last resort in self defense you have to kill or even hurt someone, you cannot be sued?? I have heard horrer stores of a CHL'er being sued tens of thousands of dollars civily when they are 100% in the right and they did nothing wrong to cause the situation. Honestly, I hate to say this, but my number one fear of shooting someone is not having to take someones life, but it is being sued (not that I want to take someone's life)

What is everyone's thoughts on that?

As of Sep 1st 2007, in Texas, you can no longer be sued in a Civil Court Case related to Lawful use of Deadly Force.

Not quite accurate. You have civil immunity which means that you can't be held liable. Someone can still sue you, it's just that you're going to win. You're still going to have to get a lawyer and all.

Seriously?? Because that is awesume!!! Thats weird that my CHL class was after this date and my instructor never mentioned this.

Well thanks all for the info!

CPR is an act of resuscitation, or life sustaining action till qualified stabilization efforts arrive at the scene...

CHL is nowhere (in my opinion) not above the scrutiny by investigators or (as much as I hate it) public opinion for what you do in that regard...And as much as I champion this certification...

There have been several discussions in the past about "what to do after"...Charles gives the best seminar on this issue...

The (rhetorical) question you might want to run thru your head is this...

If you shoot someone to stop them from hurting or killing you, and they are not immediately deceased...Do you step in and conduct resuscitation efforts while the ambulance and law enforcement (that you called yourself) are on the way?

Interesting quandry I would think...

Just my opinion...

bdickens wrote:Not quite accurate. You have civil immunity which means that you can't be held liable. Someone can still sue you, it's just that you're going to win. You're still going to have to get a lawyer and all.

Of course you are correct and that is close enough for me to forget about the consequences that were removed with the passage of the bill.

What I am trying to say is, there is not anyone that would take the case to court.

AEA wrote:

bdickens wrote:Not quite accurate. You have civil immunity which means that you can't be held liable. Someone can still sue you, it's just that you're going to win. You're still going to have to get a lawyer and all.

Of course you are correct and that is close enough for me to forget about the consequences that were removed with the passage of the bill.

What I am trying to say is, there is not anyone that would take the case to court.

Not entirely accurate either. Besides the shyster type lawyer who gives the attorney genre a bad name by filing blatantly ridiculous lawsuits even in the face of laws contrary to the suit's stated goals, there are also those who think they can get what they consider a bad law overturned in a suit, witness Dick Anthony Heller.

When I was a volunteer fireman in NY State we had a law called the "Volunteer Fireman's Benefit Act" which, among other things, provided some amount of good samaritan immunity. This was necessary because the way NY's good samaritan law was written at the time, a "professional" could still be sued: thus a doctor or nurse; or even a volunteer fireman; or even a Red Cross First Aid Instructor, who stopped to render aid, could be, and were, sued successfully by victims or survivors.

I see it as a shameful way to treat people who are trying to help, but there are always those who think that someone who stops to render aid must have done it wrong if they didn't save the lives of all of the victims and instantly cure all their ills in the process.

Tahoe132 wrote:This semester in school I am taking a first aid class as a PE credit. In this class, I learned that there is a law stating (not sure on the proper wording) that if you make an honest attempt to save someone, and you do everything correctly and to the best of your ability, and you are certified, then no matter what happens (for example they die because of you, you make them worse, you break bones during CPR, etc) you cannot be sued.

So if this is a law, why cant there be a law stating that if you are truly in danger, and as a last resort in self defense you have to kill or even hurt someone, you cannot be sued?? I have heard horrer stores of a CHL'er being sued tens of thousands of dollars civily when they are 100% in the right and they did nothing wrong to cause the situation. Honestly, I hate to say this, but my number one fear of shooting someone is not having to take someones life, but it is being sued (not that I want to take someone's life)

What is everyone's thoughts on that?

I would suggest going to Charles Cotton's Deadly force seminar.

The short answer is, if its a justified shoot and you don't run your mouth, you're probably going to be OK. This is Texas and what happens elsewhere simply doesn't apply here.

I am not as familliar with this immunity issue as I should be, but my understanding was that it was limited to situations where you were in your home or your car. If I were on the street (walking) and I was forced to defend myself or someone else, would I have the same immunity?

yes, you would. The immunity law applies to any force used that is justified by Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, no matter where. In a way, it even gives you some Good Samaritan coverage, since you are covered for the use of force to defend another person or his property. It just won't cover the suit for an accidental injury to a person that the force was not justified against, like if you miss and hit a bystander.

srothstein wrote:yes, you would. The immunity law applies to any force used that is justified by Chapter 9 of the Penal Code, no matter where. In a way, it even gives you some Good Samaritan coverage, since you are covered for the use of force to defend another person or his property. It just won't cover the suit for an accidental injury to a person that the force was not justified against, like if you miss and hit a bystander.

Thank you sir.

Does that protection apply to peace officers? On duty? Off duty?

Yes, it does apply to peace officers both on and off duty. But, for them, it is not significant since they are usually sued under federal law for civil rights violations. Excessive force is a Fourth Amendment violation. This law only applies to state causes of action (lawsuits).

srothstein wrote:Yes, it does apply to peace officers both on and off duty. But, for them, it is not significant since they are usually sued under federal law for civil rights violations. Excessive force is a Fourth Amendment violation. This law only applies to state causes of action (lawsuits).

You sure are quick...
Thanks again.