Shenzhen's efforts to build a "5-minute social emergency rescue circle" have taken another step forward. According to a report from Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, the Shenzhen Emergency Medical Center has selected 13 public first aid training bases and 5 teaching sites from voluntarily applying organizations, bringing the city's total to 30 training bases and 7 teaching sites. Meanwhile, this year will see the rollout of 40,000 free "CPR+AED" certification course training slots, with training commencing on August 13. Citizens can register through the "Shenzhen First Aid Training" mini-program. For ordinary citizens, this news represents a great opportunity to learn first aid skills; but as a lawyer, what concerns me more is this: when citizens have mastered first aid skills and step in to save someone in an emergency, how does the law protect the rescuer? Does the "Good Samaritan clause" in the Civil Code truly exempt one from all liability? This article will dissect the boundaries of responsibility behind Shenzhen's first aid expansion from a legal perspective

Expansion of First Aid Training: A Step Forward for Social Governance, but Legal Risks Cannot Be Overlooked

Shenzhen's expansion of its emergency training system this time aims to achieve a "5-minute social emergency response circle," meaning that within 5 minutes of an accident occurring, trained citizens at the scene can provide initial emergency care. From a public policy perspective, this represents an enhancement of the city's emergency management capabilities and is commendable. However, from a legal standpoint, performing rescue actions is not without risks.

Emergency rescue actions may involve civil tort liability. For example, if a rescuer performing CPR causes rib fractures in the patient due to improper operation, or mistakenly performs chest compressions on someone who does not need rescue, causing injury, should the rescuer bear compensation liability? Article 184 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates: "Where a person causes damage to the person being rescued due to voluntarily performing emergency rescue acts, the rescuer shall not bear civil liability." This provision is known as the "Good Samaritan Clause," designed to encourage acts of bravery and righteousness.

However, the application of the clause has strict prerequisites. First, the rescue act must be "voluntary," meaning the rescuer has no legal or contractual obligation to act. If the rescuer is a doctor who encounters an emergency outside of their practice setting, does their rescue act qualify as "voluntary"? The law remains controversial on this point. Second, the rescue act must occur under "emergency circumstances," meaning the person in need faces danger to life or health and there is no time to wait for professional rescue. Finally, the harm must be "caused," meaning there is a direct causal relationship between the harm and the rescue act. If the rescuer is grossly negligent or acts intentionally—for example, knowing they are incapable of providing first aid yet forcing the procedure—they may be excluded from the scope of immunity.

Shenzhen's training courses cover the four-step first aid method, CPR, and AED operation, but training does not mean the rescuer possesses professional medical expertise. In emergency situations, a rescuer's judgment and actions will inevitably have flaws—does the law place excessive demands on them? In practice, courts take into account factors such as the rescuer's level of knowledge and the urgency of the scene. Therefore, when citizens participate in training, they should not only learn the procedures but also understand the legal boundaries.

Legal Liability of Rescuers: From the Civil Code to Its Linkage with Local Legislation

Article 184 of the Civil Code is the core legal basis for exempting rescuers from liability, but it is not absolute. The legislative intent of this provision is to encourage rescue, not to condone negligence. In judicial practice, courts are cautious in determining "gross negligence." For example, if a rescuer without any training recklessly performs chest compressions, resulting in the patient's rib fractures or hemopneumothorax, the court may find that the rescuer failed to exercise reasonable care and cannot be fully exempted from liability. Conversely, if the rescuer holds a CPR+AED certification and acts in accordance with training standards, the exemption clause is highly likely to apply even if harm occurs.

The "CPR+AED Skill Certificate" issued by Shenzhen this time is not only proof of skills, but also a reference for the "duty of care" in the legal sense. Those who hold the certificate are presumed to possess professional operational capability when providing rescue, and their standard of conduct is higher. If the operation deviates from training standards, it may be determined that there is fault. However, if the operation strictly follows the standards, the possibility of exemption from liability is extremely high.

In addition, the alignment between local legislation and the Civil Code also deserves attention. Shenzhen has the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Medical Emergency Regulations," which contain specific provisions for the protection of rescuers. Article XX of these regulations (specific provision needs to be consulted) encourages personnel with first aid skills to provide emergency care and clearly grants them liability exemption. However, the regulations do not specify the criteria for determining "gross negligence," and in practice, this still relies on judges' discretion. Therefore, rescuers should not blindly rely on the "Good Samaritan clause" and must exercise caution when providing assistance.

For the recipient of aid, if they are harmed due to improper rescue, how can they defend their rights? Legally, the recipient must prove that the rescuer acted with intent or gross negligence, which typically requires professional assessment. For example, whether rib fractures resulted from improper hand placement during chest compressions needs to be evaluated by medical appraisal institutions. Training courses in Shenzhen emphasize the "four-step first aid method" and operational key points for special populations, which in effect reduce rescue risks and indirectly decrease legal disputes.

From law to practice: Considerations for ordinary people participating in first aid training

For ordinary citizens, participating in free training is a good way to fulfill social responsibility, but they should also have legal awareness. First, before registering, one should understand the training content. This course covers CPR+AED operations for adults and special populations, and trainees should master it seriously, especially key points such as compression depth, frequency, and the timing of AED use, which directly determine whether the operation is standardized. Second, a certificate is obtained after training and assessment, but the certificate is not a "get-out-of-jail-free card." When providing rescue, one must still assess the on-site environment and ensure personal safety. For example, in scenarios such as electric shock or fire, the source of danger should be cut off first; otherwise, blind rescue may cause harm to oneself. In such cases, how should responsibility be allocated?

In legal terms, a rescuer who causes secondary harm through their own fault may bear partial liability. For example, moving an injured person without first confirming the scene

Additionally, rescuers should preserve evidence. During the rescue, they can ask bystanders to record video or note the time to prepare for potential legal disputes. Shenzhen's first aid training also advocates teamwork, as multiple rescuers can share the risk. If a dispute arises from the rescue, the rescuer can seek legal assistance to prove that they meet the conditions for the "Good Samaritan clause."

For enterprises, the expansion of emergency first aid training in Shenzhen also offers insights. Companies that organize employees to participate in first aid training can enhance workplace safety while reducing employment risks. If an employee suddenly falls ill during work hours, prompt and appropriate assistance from colleagues may prevent more serious consequences. However, enterprises should note that first aid training cannot replace professional medical care, and the boundaries of employee intervention should be clearly defined to avoid encouraging excessive action.

Lawyers advise: First aid training is a good thing, but legal awareness needs to keep pace.

The construction of Shenzhen's "5-minute social emergency rescue circle" is a reflection of urban civilization. The 40,000 free slots mean that more citizens will master first aid skills. However, legally, the rights and obligations between the rescuer and the rescued require a clearer understanding across society. As a lawyer, I recommend:

Citizens participating in the training should conscientiously study legal knowledge. The training courses may include legal explanations, but they are mostly general principles. Citizens may proactively consult Article 184 of the Civil Code and local regulations of Shenzhen to understand the conditions for exemption from liability. When providing rescue, stay calm and operate in accordance with training standards. If a dispute arises, do not panic, and promptly consult a professional lawyer. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long focused on public safety legal matters and can provide relevant legal guidance.

In addition, it is recommended that the Shenzhen Emergency Center incorporate legal case sharing into its training, allowing trainees to intuitively understand the application of the "Good Samaritan clause." For example, although rare, there are cases where a rescuer was held liable due to improper operation, which serve as a cautionary reminder. The law is not an obstacle to rescue but a tool that protects goodwill. Only when legal awareness keeps pace can first aid training achieve its full value.

Finally, I hope that every citizen who obtains the "CPR + AED Skills Certificate" can become a Shenzhen resident who "dares to rescue, knows how to rescue, and rescues well," and, under the protection of the law, contribute to the safety of the city.