A bill in the California legislature held out hope for encouraging wider adoption of the lifesaving devices, but couldn’t make it past the Litigation Lobby. [John Frith, California Civil Justice Blog]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
by Walter Olson on May 8, 2010
A bill in the California legislature held out hope for encouraging wider adoption of the lifesaving devices, but couldn’t make it past the Litigation Lobby. [John Frith, California Civil Justice Blog]
Tagged as: California, emergency medicine, premises liability

Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 3 comments }
To make defibrillators more accessable and to decrease associated liability the law should be that they must be installed in attorney’s offices and all places where attorney meet with their clients.
And you just know the “fits gonna hit the shan” when a trial lawyer is one of the unlucky 94% and his or her time came at an establishment that does not have a defib because of this FAIL in committee.
Shakespeare says “Hi!” to Darwin.
Perhaps personal injury trial lawyers could be required to wear a “Medic Alert” tag or bracelet similar to those for diabetics or sufferers of heart disease. As someone who has been trained in CPR and the use of an AED, I would want to make sure they are not subjected to the possibility of misuse or use of an improperly maintained AED.
Just sayin’.
Comments on this entry are closed.