Well, here's the quagmire....CLS training provides skills that sometimes exceed that of a Paramedic (depending on jurisdiction). The OP can stay well within his "training" and still possibly be held negligent. When I went through years ago, it was clearly explained to me that the class was to provide us the skills to save a fellow warrior's life. No matter how useful, we were not to use invasive skills or treatments on civilians. Seems like this "liability" speech wasn't part of the OP's class. Same thing with most Army medics and Navy Corpsmen I know....their training differeniated what was military scope of practice and civilian (since most had EMT-B certification at a minimum). Since then, I've worked as a FF/EMT and an EMT instructor and have embraced the hazards of liability and civil suits. There's been many favorable incidents where CLS servicemen/women have rendered aid as good samaritans and saved civilian lives. However most of them utilized their basic assessment skills, mainted ABCs, and maybe applied a pressure dressing. What if one of these folks had their CLS bag or IFAK in their POV? And tried to give a pill pack, insert an NPA, start a saline lock (or even an EZ-IO), or use combat gauze? All of these skills exceed first aid care here in CA, some aren't even authorized for ALS in some counties (ie - hemostatic agents). Again, all within the scope of CLS/TCCC training, but well outside civilian first aid training. Would these procedures still be covered under Good Samaritan? I don't know. Hence my previous recommendation to ask your local EMSA. Food for thought....most civilian Paramedics are taught to render good samaritan care at the BLS level.
I concur with many of the previous posters that the OP attend a civilian first aid or first responder course. But that wasn't his original question.