An older paper on legal issues on the same issue..
The Link...
Legal Status of those who Attempt Resuscitation
The interesting part... the second bolded area is where "standards" of any recognized training agency would be used to aid in prosecution of a diver who forcefully pokes, hits or prods another diver in the water...
Although there have been a few cases in the United Kingdom where a claim has been brought against a ÅÓescuer?
there have been no reported cases at all where a casualty has successfully sued someone who came to his aid in an emergency. A claim might therefore, in theory, be brought against a rescuer either in the law of trespass on the grounds that his intervention constituted an assault on the casualty, and / or in the law of negligence for a breach of his duty of care towards the casualty. Potentially there could also be liability for assault in criminal law, but this document will concentrate purely on principles of civil liability and claims for compensation. A claim could be brought either by the casualty or, should they die, by their estate, and
if the actions of the rescuer led to serious personal injury or death, a very large payment of damages by way of compensation could in theory be ordered by the court.
And a little more...
A claim may be brought against a rescuer for what is commonly known as assault but, more accurately, described as battery. Battery is a form of trespass against the person that is actionable in itself. In other words, in order to succeed in a claim, the victim does not have to show that he has suffered any actual harm, although it would be necessary for him to show this if he was to be awarded any more than a minimal compensatory sum. Battery is the ÅÊnfliction of unlawful personal force upon another? Force, which can include even light touching, is unlawful if the person upon whom it is exerted has not given his consent to it
The accepted defense of a care giver/rescuer...
The first is the defence of ÅÊmplied consent? the justification behind which is that if the person were conscious and able to make a decision, he would consent to the procedure. The second primary defence to any action for trespass against the person is that of ÅÏecessity? The reasoning here is that treatment without consent can be considered lawful if it is given in the best interests of the patient...
One view on samaritan protection...
There has been some controversy about whether this is a defence which does in fact exist in English law. In one famous House of Lords case, however, the judge stated ÅÕhat there exists in the common law a principle of necessity which may justify action which would otherwise be unlawful is not in doubt?
Final analysis of this paper...
There are likely, however, to be limitations on the application of these defences when procedures are carried out by non-professional rescuers and the less well trained the rescuer the harder it may become to justify either defence. It becomes more difficult, for example, to argue that an unconscious person has given implied consent to a (relatively) untrained person performing what is in effect a medical procedure, notwithstanding that the procedure may be straightforward, automated and mechanical. Similarly, it may be harder to argue that treatment by a lay person is in the best interests of the casualty.
Only if the action taken by a lay person is, under all the circumstances, ÁÓeasonable and in the best interests of the assisted person, is there likely to be a defence.
Notice that the defense is for a "lay" person. An instructor would then be held to a greater degree of scrutiny and legal exposure and any deviation from accepted training standards would be considered most likely NOT in the best interests of the casualty.