ypt question

[acco40]

There is no BSA rule or requirement that an outing must end if an adult has to leave.

 

Note: Bold type denotes rules and policies.

 

■Two-deep leadership.

Two registered adult leaders or one registered leader and a parent of a participant, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required on all trips and outings. The chartered organization is responsible for ensuring that sufficient leadership is provided for all activities.

 

Seems fairly clear to me that there is a "rule" about covering such a situation. If two adults are present initially and one leaves, the requirement is no longer satisfied, hence outing / trip should cease.

 

[NealOnWheels]

I think many of us are overthinking this.

 

In an emergency I will take care of the health and welfare of the youth before concerning myself with two deep leadership. At that point I am not really concerned about false accusations.

 

Once the emergency has been attended to then I would make a judgement call as to how to procede. Can I return to the group? Can I find a substitute even for a few hours? Do I cancel the event and how do I get the group home? It will all depend on the circumstances. There are too many senarios to give a do XYZ when ABC happens.

[JoeBob]

Openning Scenario:

Camping trip, state park. 30 minutes from hospital. 3 hours from home. 2 leaders.

6pm, dusk. Scout A gashes his hand. First aid applied. Bleeding slowed, but not stopped.

 

Closing Scenario One: Everybody piles into cars immediately and heads to the emergency room where they all stand around until Scout A's parents arrive 2 and a half hours later. Then the scouts return to camp in the dark, at midnight, to see if their camping gear is still where they abandoned camp 4 hours ago.

 

Closing Scenario Two: Everybody takes the time to breakdown camp and then head out to the ER. Camping trip is over. Additional hour delay in getting to ER caused by breaking down camp will reduce chances of full-recovery for injured scout.

 

Closing Scenario Three: One leader rushes injured scout to ER, and returns to camp 4 hours later. Remaining leader stays with the campers and avoids 1 to 1 contact during that time.

 

Anyone care to argue that Closing Scenario Three is not the best possible outcome?

 

No policy should ever cause you to endanger the life of limb of a scout in your care.

 

Is common sense really that uncommon?

[Rockford8070]

JoeBob,

 

Scenario 3 could easily be altered to adhere to both common sense and YPT. The leader could take another scout with him.

 

Even if there were 3 scouts and 2 leaders, one of the leaders could stay behind and make sure camp is setup. Or at the very least that nothing gets ravaged by the wildlife etc.

[JoeBob]

Rockford - If one scout goes with the leader, that creates 1 to 1 after they lose the injurred scout and return to camp.

 

 

[Eagle007]

Good Grief. You guys are giving yourselves headaches over this. Why not avoid the problem altogether and stay home? *Note the sarcasm*

 

In senario three, if the injury is that serious contact emergency medical services (the ambulance)! This mole hill is being turned into a mountain in quick fashion.

[Beavah]

Hiya dennis99ss,

 

I don't think yeh need to tie yourself in knots over this stuff, eh?

 

All that's required of you as a volunteer in an emergency situation is that you act like a reasonably prudent adult. Remember, the G2SS has nothing to do with legal liability, nor does it dictate how yeh should respond in an emergency. It's an internal guidance document to help with program implementation under normal conditions. That's it. So long as yeh act like a reasonably prudent adult, yeh have no reason to be fearful.

 

So by all means, take an injured boy to the hospital. If yeh have the ability to do so without significant delays, take an older first-aid trained scout along to assist, or another adult. Of course if yeh really have a lad who is seriously injured or goin' into shock, call for an ambulance. Remember, yeh can ask an ambulance to meet or "intercept" you at a particular point, eh? That often works best in remote areas.

 

Leave the other adult in camp with da rest of the boys. Don't create more confusion, communications problems, delays and risk of injury by trying to take everybody to the hospital, or to get a bunch of other drivers to come out and evacuate everybody back to home while the one adult is away. That doesn't meet the test of being a reasonably prudent adult. Establish how you're goin' to re-establish contact after the ER visit, and take the lad in.

 

Now, if yeh are goin' somewhere a long way from home, don't forget that scoutin' is a wonderful community. Before yeh go, contact some scouters in the area where you'll be travelin'. They can give yeh information on local features, attractions, and deals. And, in an emergency, fellow scouters will be there for yeh. I've gone out to help with a unit that had a sick adult, and I have no doubt others would at the drop of a hat.

 

That's one of the greatest benefits of scouting, eh? We don't do it alone. Yeh have brothers and sisters a stone's throw away no matter where yeh go, and yeh can count on 'em to help other people at all times.

 

Beavah

 

[Scoutfish]

It is a rule, but like mentioned above...use some common sense and trhen apply real world circumstance.

 

Suppose you have 8 adults..AND they are all YPT traind ANd registered leaders.

 

Suppose somethin g happens like a bad batch of food or a rabid racoon attacks. Maybe a rabid wolf comes to camp and attacks. Adults try to protect the kids, all 8 are injured. Then what?

 

What if a husband is in the woods and his wife is home. He says something. If she can't hear him, is he still wrong?

 

 

 

Okay, look. In fire figheter school we were always taught that you always have back up no matter what. So two guys go into a burning house to try and rescue the occupants. If you send them in, you better have another team ready to go, in case the first team has trouble.

 

BUT....as soon as you send that second team in, you better have a 3rd team. Then you better have a 4th. Then a 5th and so on. So how many people have a job as a fireman?

 

At this point, the only way to absolutely follow the rules is to let the people inside die. "Sorry about that, but we didn't want to get sued."

 

It's like Twocubdad said: "Emergencies trump all else!"

PRERIOD!

 

And as a firefighter/EMS/ Water Rescue..I WILL tell you...you CANNOT always wait on an ambulance. If the closest EMS is 30 miles away, if traffic is bad, if you are deep in the woods (especially a hike in) If it's summer and the EMS district is especially busy and has to call another unit fromanother district....Well, going out can cut the time that the victem gets help in half! Sometims more.

 

May be that you meet up with the EMS unit on the hiway, half way, or closer. Which mean you cut the time in at least half for anti venom or whatnot.

 

Somebody wants to sue you in these particular circumstances....you will be protected under good samaritan laws.

 

 

Besides, as pointed out, YPT and 2D are two seperate although connected issues.

 

 

[dennis99ss]

beavah--had not thought about local guys. good idea.

 

scoutfish - the husband is always wrong--at least in my household i am always wrong.

 

but, re: good samaritan laws, we are really not in a position where they apply. We are not good samaritans in the whole sense. we have taken on a duty, and, if we act in a way that causes harm, i believe negligence could be there given the right facts. Good samaritan is really designed for passers by. we do not fall into that catagory.

 

i agree that 1 on 1 is dangerous, both for bsa and the leader personally. liability exists whenever we take a troop out, both for abuse allegations, but also for negligence, i.e. the recent florida suit for making the boy walk to far. so, i was really just gathering info for the future in case the situation arrises.

 

 

[clemlaw]

>>>>>>Closing Scenario Three: One leader rushes injured scout to ER, and returns to camp 4 hours later. Remaining leader stays with the campers and avoids 1 to 1 contact during that time.

 

[Beavah]

but, re: good samaritan laws, we are really not in a position where they apply. We are not good samaritans in the whole sense. we have taken on a duty, and, if we act in a way that causes harm, i believe negligence could be there given the right facts.

 

Nah, yeh really shouldn't be playin' amateur attorney, eh? You're confusing yourself.

 

Tort liability (negligence) is based on the actions of a reasonably prudent person in the community, not the G2SS. In fact, if yeh fail to act like a common-sense, reasonable person because you're following every line of G2SS, then you ARE being negligent. Like waitin' around with an injured kid while the troop packs up so as to comply with two-deep.

 

Good sam laws will most likely apply to medical treatment yeh offer a scout in an emergency as a first aider because that's what they're designed for. We want first aiders to respond, not just sit and wait for the ambulance.

 

In addition, as a scouter, volunteer statutory immunity from negligence torts most likely applies. As a volunteer for a NFP, yeh get the same statutory immunity as the good sam laws (in fact, stronger in some cases).

 

So relax. Despite what yeh may think, your neighbors aren't likely to hang yeh if yeh behave in a common-sense fashion.

 

i agree that 1 on 1 is dangerous, both for bsa and the leader personally.

 

Not really. Leastways, I wouldn't use da term "dangerous". Lots of one-on-one raises the opportunity for abuse, which is nonetheless quite rare. One-on-one raises the possibility of false accusation, which is also quite rare. So it's a prudence thing, but nowhere near as "dangerous" as not wearin' a seatbelt.

 

liability exists whenever we take a troop out, both for abuse allegations, but also for negligence,

 

No, responsibility exists whenever we take kids out. We have some duty of care. As we should! Tort liability for claims of simple negligence against us probably is not present, because of statutory immunity. Tort liability of the CO or the BSA is a different matter, and depends on the state and the circumstances. But most importantly, a finding of negligence requires that we failed in our duty of care in a manner that caused foreseeable harm.

 

So be prepared, exercise da judgment of a reasonably prudent person, and yeh will not have failed in your duty of care and therefore will not be negligent. But if yeh make ordinary mistakes, yeh also are protected.

 

And then on top of it all, you're insured.

 

So relax, and just do good scouting, eh? And if a lad gets hurt, take care of him. Don't tie yourself up in knots worryin' about the G2SS or the liability boogeyman.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagle007]

Beavah, I for the life of me can't put my hands around all of this confusion of negligence and duty to act and failure to act and so on. With my extensive background and experience in law enforcement, fire & rescue and emergency medical sercices, I find it profoundly amuzing that people trip all over themselves with concern over these issues. No offense but people overthink what seems to be the obvious use of good, old fashioned, common sense.

 

Because of my professional training, background and experience, I would definitely be subjected to liability and neglegence in a failure to act situation. Again, this is because I am a professional - this is what I do for a living. I would probably be safe in saying that most volunteers in scouting are not in the medical profession and are not obligated under the same laws as medical professionals.

 

If a volunteer scouter is that concerned about and is constantly thinking that he/she is going to be put in a litigious situation over any action they take or don't take (be it medical issues or not) then this may not be the best organization for them. They may want to encourage themselves to excel elsewhere for their own pysical and mental well being.

[dennis99ss]

Bummer. 7 years of school and 20 years of practice down the drain.

 

But I am not getting into a argument here. Lets just say we have a different view of the law and what standards would be applied.

 

Liability out there, yes. But that's why you have an umbrella policy. Being knowledgeable about your potential liabilities is a good thing. It allows you to adequately plan and prepare.

 

 

[Eagle007]

Dennis, definitely no arguments here, just a healthy discussion. I was trying to provide some insight from my side of the tracks so to speak. And I am certainly open to learning from others experiences and training.

 

I have heard these types of topics from people in our area who are scared to death of either doing something or not doing something for fear of being sued. And to be quite honest, it rattles their cages so bad that they would rather stand in the middle of the road and get run over by a semi than make a decision one way or the other.

 

Being prepared and having multiple contingency plans is always a super idea.

[dennis99ss]

Eagle 007, bwahahahaha

 

 

As volunteers, we agree to follow the rules of bsa. this gives us some protection and should bring us under bsa insurance policies, but that does not mean bsa would be the exclusive party to look towards if something goes wrong. The following of bsa policies would simply be a defense against the personal liability. But, if we step outside of bsa policy, the question would become whether the stepping out was the cause of the incident. While there are immunities, they are not all encompassing, and can be broken. It all depends on the facts. I have gotten around a few in matters myself.

 

The potential for liability is likely the real reason behind many of the bsa changes, i.e. medical forms and weight limitations for adults, required training for leaders, etc. I fully expect bsa to institute a stronger ypt policy as well. It is what i would recommend if bsa was a client given the current state of abuse filings.

 

It is a common sense issue, but encompasses more than that. It is really a legal issue. But, everything we do has the potential for legal consequences. Boys swinging sticks--we tell them to stop, they continue, we tell them again, it continues, and a boy is injured. Was it negligent for us, as leaders, to fail to ensure that there were no sticks around to swing given the desire of the boys to swing the sticks? A very simple question, that most would say, no problems there, but, in my way of thinking, I say, yes, I could build a case there.

 

It is a societal thing, and, I agree that you cannot live your life in fear of being sued. You simply have to use best judgment, given the facts, with some idea that there is a line over which we cannot cross. That line, of course, is always moving.

 

I don't know much about the Florida case as I have not looked into it yet, but the question appears to be did the leaders know the boy was having difficulty on the hike, and should they have stopped. The issue may be was the leader ignoring warning signs, or was he simply attempting to encourage the boy to continue without an indication of a problem.

 

I love your comment about standing in the street though. So true.