Today’s question poses the scenario of:
A Security guard in a shopping centre is usually the appointed First Aider [as part of the Emergency Control Organisation [AS 3745-2010], dealing with the public. The security guard must hold a valid first aid certificate and normally this is the cheapest/ easiest course available. WHAT IF, when confronted with a life threatening first aid scenario such as a young child suffering from a possible anaphylactic reaction to a known trigger age and displaying symptoms, the security guard does not know what to do. I mean if they are qualified BUT NOT competent. Are they or the security firm liable as surely they are not covered under the good Samaritan act as this is part of their scope of practice and they are the nominated first aid officer.
No the security guard would not be a ‘good Samaritan’. He or she is at work and if his her duties including providing first aid they are not acting without expectation of fee or reward. The good Samaritan legislation in each jurisdiction would be irrelevant.
Could they be liable? The security firm could be vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee but there will only be liability if it can be shown that in the circumstances some other treatment would have made a difference to the outcome. That begs the question of what was the outcome? If the patient recovers without long term injury then there is no damage. If they do have long term disability what could the security guard have done? A first aid certificate does not necessarily authorise someone to carry an epipen (a schedule 3 drug). If there was no epipen available then there’s nothing the guard could have done even if he or she had wanted to do something.
The answer is we can’t know. It all depends on the facts.
For a related answer see First aid by security guards (May 26, 2014).
Australian Emergency Law 
As a Victorian Security Guard for a small company that have their own collective agreement which has no provision for first aid allowance, yet at some work sites eg shopping centres we are expected to render first aid – As the job sop states.
Should we then legally be paid a first aid allowance?
Do we still have a duty of care anyway due to holding a first aid certificate (As part of security licence).
Or is it a matter of not being paid the allowance then we cannot have the duty of care?
Looking forward to some advise on this…
If you are employed as a security guard then you are part of the client’s emergency response. You must have a duty to do something but exactly what is hard to say. Just imagine a person collapsed on the ground and the security guard is standing there, watching and doing nothing because ‘I’m not paid a first aid allowance’. The outrageous nature of that story would suggest that everyone would expect a security guard to do something – to take some action – to at least control the scene and ring triple zero.
And it is a condition of getting a security licence that you hold a first aid certificate with the obvious implication that security guards are meant to be trained and therefore can be expected to do something. That doesn’t mean you have to be a paramedic, or save the person’s life, but you are expected to have some idea and do something.
Further if the client has contracted with your company and part of the job is to provide first aid and there’s no first aid allowance in your collective agreement then you have collectively agreed to do first aid without an allowance. You don’t have to be paid a first aid allowance if you have negotiated one (I say remembering that I am not an industrial lawyer).
If you’re a security guard and someone on your watch gets injured and you’re asked to help you have a duty to that person and the contractor who has engaged you. The duty is to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. What that means we cannot say in the abstract but it could not be permissible to do nothing.