Justice Baxter clearly doesn't know how AED units work. Once you
place the pads on, the first stage is diagnosis. The unit will not
proceed with the shock unless its analysis shows that a shock is
medically indicated.

Regardless, that's completely separate from any legal duty to have
an AED available. Given the lack of a law requiring them, the
courts should find no legal duty for the store to acquire one. This
is a store and not a clinic. Their responsibility consists of a
timely call to 911 where the experts can be summoned.

The biggest problems with the AED units isn't using them; they really are simple to us, and the chances are not bad that someone in a large store will have had the training.

The problem is: you can't just stick a unit on a wall and forget about it. If an AED is to work when you want it, you need to have it checked annually - does the battery still have charge? Is the adhesive on the pads still sticky? This is yet another item to put on the annual maintenance schedule, and another annual cost. This is just a small thing, but...

I read another blog where a very successful little multi-state business is closing its California branches, one by one, as the opportunity arises to sell them. Why? Because California has so many regulations. Each individual rule has some justification, each one is small, but in total they become an impossible mountain. Add to that the California culture of suing over the smallest infraction, and California is downright hostile to business.

Passing this would be a trial lawyers dream.
The store would be sued for not properly using it, for not training every single employee on it's use. Or be sued if it is old or not of the latest greatest model, or not found in the unlikely chance of it's need. Or if it wasn't charged properly.

The title of this article indicates a gross conceptual error as to how an AED works.
The machine is more intelligent than most people when it comes to deciding when to administer shock. The device only does so to stop fibrillation. Then, in a clear and loud voice, it gives instructions on how to perform CPR.

Gregg would have about 4 minutes of no pulmonary function before brain deterioration sets in. How fast can you get anywhere in LA?
Are you really going to just stand there, waiting for "professionals"?

Raddy, that does remind me of Glenn Reynolds's bit about "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away." Yes, the AEDs are very well designed for their job. When you put one on a person, it will first run a diagnosis of the current heart rhythm to see whether shock is indicated. If so, it will tell you when to press the button, and in between it will instruct you on doing CPR and artificial respiration. It also has readouts that will tell the paramedics exactly what has been happening and what treatment has been administered, when they arrive.

However, as Randomguy points out, they aren't cheap and there is periodic maintenance required. I'm a ballroom dancer, and there has been some discussion among the dance competition sanctioning bodies about requiring competition venues to have one, but the maintenance responsibility and associated liability is a daunting problem. Plus, when it's needed, someone has to know where the thing is. I've been trained on AED use and I make it a point when I enter a building to scope out the location of the nearest AED, but in a crisis you might go blank on stuff like that. It would help if public building operators could be encouraged to standardize. In the building complex I work in, if you go to any elevator bank on any floor, there is always one there. On the other hand, if you make that a regulation, then it becomes one more thing to be sued over.

Ron is absolutely right. The judge is clueless about how these things work. We had them in the last office where I worked. There was a bit of training for employees on how to use them safely, where to put the pasd, etc., but they are essentially automatic, won't activate if you don't need it, and can be used by pretty much anyone. On the other hand, if you'd rather die while waiting for emergency services than be touched by a regular Target employee, feel free.

If the judge is clueless, and probably the lawyer too, why would you expect a significant % of cashiers to know. Which would be required to have for it to be useful in a store.

Joe, I've had the training, and it was fairly minimal. I got the impression that the main purpose of the training was simply that the person being trained knows what to expect when they use the machine, to overcome the startle factor. The only bit you really have to know for yourself is how and where to place the two pads (they are rather large, and placing them involves partially disrobing the victim).

Ms. Alkon, with all due respect, if you have a heart attack at Target, the shoe stocking woman might save your life with an AED. They are now being sued because they did not have an AED on hand.

I've had training on an AED and they are ridiculously easy to use. Further, 80% of the lives saved with an AED are done by someone who has had no training on them. This is possible because the modern AEDs have a programmed speaker that does a diagnosis and walks you through what you're supposed to do. The device's spoken instructions are at a second grade reading level.

It sounds like you're thinking of Hollywood medicine, where AEDs could be used to cook dinner---they're as realistic as the gigantic machine guns that Angelina Jolie can accurately fire with one hand. It'd be terrible public policy to ban AEDs from big stores. Where I live (Washington, DC), I believe an office is required to have one once it reaches a certain size.

If I Pass Out At Target, I Sure Don't Want The Lady Who Restocks The Shoes Shocking My Heart

Better the woman who restocks the shoes plugs you into an AED than she decides to do CPR when you only have an irregular heart rhythm. Shocking resets the rhythm of your heart, CPR interferes with it - which if fine when there is no rhythm, but if your heart has not actually stopped and is only beating irregularly, CPR could kill you.

The AED takes the decisions out of the hands of poorly-trained amateurs who've been watching too much television. And God help you if the amateur decides to do a precordial thump 'cause they did one on "Grey's Anatomy" last night.

Whether the device is easy to use is irrelevant. The state has no business forcing a private company to provide medical emergency services.

Whether the device is easy to use is irrelevant. The state has no business forcing a private company to provide medical emergency services.

Posted by: Jeff at May 7, 2014 2:30 PM

Agreed, and the medical profession, and the manufacturers have way oversold their usefulness as a life saving tool.

People with a massive coronary, or a burst aneurism are not going to ever be hunky dory again after the application of AED.

It will actually be life saving for an extremely small percentage of victims.

This is all about legal gamesmanship. If the family of the dead woman can get the court to rule that not having an AED in a store is negligence per se, it opens up the deep pockets of the Target corporation to a multi million dollar settlement.

We had something like this at previous employer...probably an earlier model. The got taken out because they had forgotten to get them serviced for quite some time and had to be replaced....the company decided it was too much money.

Numerous people have already explained that some random employee deciding to shock you isn't how an AED works. So I won't belabour that.

The commenters in general have a much better idea about how this works. I'd rather it was there, maintained or not, than wait.

CPR can maintain the brain for a long time, if you have have a long enough line of people to switch off with when you get tired, which let me tell you is bloody quickly. The intention is not to revive people but to keep enough blood/oxygen flowing to prevent brain death. The record is something like 90 minutes, and the guy made a full recovery.

An AED would have just been telling people to keep at it until help arrived, not administering random shocks. Whether it should be required or not is one issue. Whether keeping an AED around is a risk is something that certain judges and writers should go and learn something about.

We were required to get these at our office recently and told that under no uncertain terms would anyone who was not trained ever to use them, but get someone who had received the training. I guess they were afraid of the the "you didn't know what you were doing when you tried to save my life" type lawsuit that can come of these things so they were trying to be proactive.

Well, I was one of the people who was supossed to get that training and that never happened. It's been over a year since they were installed. I hope no one needs to be rescued any time soon.

Seems like there is a trade-off decision here.

I am very sympathetic to the argument against more laws, and the costs of maintenance.

But the trade-off in this case seems worthwhile, similar to the requirement for fire exit signs and fire extinguishers. Businesses already have to maintain this stuff.

I have no data, but my suspicion is that more people die in stores from heart attacks than from fires.

But the trade-off in this case seems worthwhile, similar to the requirement for fire exit signs and fire extinguishers. Businesses already have to maintain this stuff.

Very good point. Imagine if the response to that was "those are too much of a liability, we'll call 911 and wait for the professionals". You'd get laughed out of the room. You can do a lot more damage using the wrong type of extinguisher on the wrong type of fire than you will with an AED.

Sabrina, you may not have been trained but the instructions are right there inside the lid of the box. And it would be incredibly hard if not impossible to harm someone with one. You can get it wrong so it doesn't work, but you can't kill them. So if you have someone with a suspected heart attack, break it out, stick on the pads as shown, and follow the instructions. While someone is calling for help of course.

I know you were told not to touch them if you haven't been trained Sabrina, but my view is that the people who told you that were idiots. That of course, is not your fault.

In my view, having one available but not using it is way more likely to result in a lawsuit - against the dickheads that told you that you couldn't use it. AEDs will only shock someone if a certain type of pattern is detected. The operator really can't just yell "Clear!" and hit the big red button.

I sympathize with the general argument, but if it becomes a law (or worse yet, a court-mandated standard), where does it end? You can make an equally valid argument that a busines should be required to stock Epipens for anyone who has an anaphaylatic allergic reation on the premises. And soft casts for anyone who falls and breaks a leg. And [can't remember the name of the drug] for anyone who has a stroke. Etc etc. Pretty soon you can't operate a business without having a fully stocked clinic on the premises, with all of the associated regulations for keeping everything current and the liabililty for when one of those things actually gets used by someone.