The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Legal Duty
I have been working on an article on a subject that I find intrieguing - the duty to render aid. The traditional law in the US is that absent a "legal duty" to act, no one has a duty to come to the aid of another. A blind person could be walking toward an open manhole and a bystander has no legal obligation to warn or stop him/her.
Legal duties arise primarily due to relationships (parent to child, teacher to student, ship captain to passenger), and by law (such as laws that require the driver of a car to render aid to anyone who is injured in an accident involving the car). On duty firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics have a legal duty to respond to alarms and render aid.
But the law is evolving. Many states have enacted more a generalized "duty to act" imposing a duty to render aid to anyone who may need assistance. Cases are starting to appear that question how much assistance is enough. Example - a day care center was sued when a child died and no one on staff was trained in CPR. A college was sued when a student athlete suffered a heart attack and none of the coaches were CPR trained, and a trainer was not assigned to the practice.
My question is - how much is enough? If the day care center or college had CPR trained personnel standing by but no AED - and the patient died - did they breach their duty by not having an AED? If they had CPR trained personnel and an AED but no epi-pen - did they breach their duty? It could go on and on. My concern is about the application of these theories to the fire service and EMS providers. How much is enough?
Before we get sidetracked - please understand this issue involves more than gready plaintiffs/lawyers looking to make a buck. It involves a very human desire for justice when someone feels they have been wronged. That desire is very strong and can consume the victims' family. It does not end with civil law suits but can lead to criminal charges. The families of the firefighters killed in the 30 Mile Fire in Washington state in 2001 lobbied for 5 years before the incident commander was indicted for manslaughter in 2006. When people believe justice has not been served - money is not the objective.
So what are your thoughts. Where should the line be drawn. Should the law remain that no one has a duty to help another. Should it evolve? How much is enough?
Legal duties arise primarily due to relationships (parent to child, teacher to student, ship captain to passenger), and by law (such as laws that require the driver of a car to render aid to anyone who is injured in an accident involving the car). On duty firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics have a legal duty to respond to alarms and render aid.
But the law is evolving. Many states have enacted more a generalized "duty to act" imposing a duty to render aid to anyone who may need assistance. Cases are starting to appear that question how much assistance is enough. Example - a day care center was sued when a child died and no one on staff was trained in CPR. A college was sued when a student athlete suffered a heart attack and none of the coaches were CPR trained, and a trainer was not assigned to the practice.
My question is - how much is enough? If the day care center or college had CPR trained personnel standing by but no AED - and the patient died - did they breach their duty by not having an AED? If they had CPR trained personnel and an AED but no epi-pen - did they breach their duty? It could go on and on. My concern is about the application of these theories to the fire service and EMS providers. How much is enough?
Before we get sidetracked - please understand this issue involves more than gready plaintiffs/lawyers looking to make a buck. It involves a very human desire for justice when someone feels they have been wronged. That desire is very strong and can consume the victims' family. It does not end with civil law suits but can lead to criminal charges. The families of the firefighters killed in the 30 Mile Fire in Washington state in 2001 lobbied for 5 years before the incident commander was indicted for manslaughter in 2006. When people believe justice has not been served - money is not the objective.
So what are your thoughts. Where should the line be drawn. Should the law remain that no one has a duty to help another. Should it evolve? How much is enough?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin King on
-
If it's made a law then every man ,woman and child becomes a outlaw. It is a moral thing to render aide to your fellows, the same stands for why we do what we do. It's not because of a paycheck it's because it's the right thing to do and you have the intestinal fortitude to do it. Enough said!
-
Permalink Reply by ILDisasterEMT on
-
The problem with fire fighters and EMTs/Parmedics is a different kettle of fish than say our brothers in blue who have a duty to stop a crime in progress whether they are on duty or not. Obviously, an off duty fire fighter driving down the street who sees a house fire may have the duty to call it in (at least an ethical duty) but what can he really do by himself. Of course he can stop and try to determine if everyone is out, if anyone is home, perhaps start to get other agencies (EMS, LE) en route, but there really isnt anything that that single FF can do unless he has his bunkers in his truck and can get suited up to wait for the rest of his department.
Speaking as an EMT, I can say it is different for us. When off duty, we are not required to stop at an accident, assist a person in medical distress in the local Wal-Mart, etc, though most of us have a system of morality that would cause us to step in. Its the same sense of duty to our fellow man that caused us to get into the game in the first place.
But...
EMTs and Paramedics operate differently. Basically, regardless of how well trained we are, if we chose to take action off duty, we are nothing more than good samaritans. We can crawl into a car and hold c-spine, put direct pressure on the foot of a child who stepped on broken glass, but what we cant do, no matter how tricked out our personal jump kits may be and the fact that they may be in the trunk, we cant give meds, we really shouldnt be splinting a leg, using QuikClot instead of direct pressure because those things fall under the category of rendering medical care and while we have licenses from our state DOPH, those licenses are predicated on the fact that we work for a department or agency and treat under the umbrella of the license of our medical director and our licenses to perform pre-hospital emergency medicine only cover us during the time we are on duty since that is the only time that A) we are covered by liability insurance and B)are working under the medical directors license. I agree with Kevin that we have a "human duty" to act, but you really have t assess that duty on a case by case basis because that moment of aide that you render, if outside what the average citizen can do, could very well cost you your license, some time in jail, hefty fines and end your career. So perhaps the test should be, is what I am going to do here going to significantly impact the likelihood that this person I want to help will live or die. If the answer is no, you may want to confine you care-giving to getting some vital signs, performing a rapid trauma assessment or if you should roll up on a multi-victim MVC, move from car to car, seeing who is ok, who is unresponsive, etc so that when on duty responders arrive you can fill them in.
-
Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on
-
Lets be honest here. This seems to be as much a subject of Morality as is law. I know in my situation (and I would hope most of my friends as well) if we happen upon an accident, we stop and help. A medical down the road, we stop to help (even if not an EMT or medic you can go there to calm the victim, the family and give a update for incoming EMS) Driving down the road and seeing a fire and not calling it in would be 100% stupid. The only reasons I can think of not calling it in is firefighters already on scene working the fire, or if that firefighter set it. (yes it happens)
We live in a guilty society. For every 10 people that want to see justice, you have 100 lined up to make the quick buck. Watch television for a couple hours, and count the ambulance chasers. (they are annoying) They all but ensure you riches for the minor accidents and legal issues. I wish that The Judicial system would crack down. All too often you know someone who is lawsuit happy. (funds get low, time to sue someone) Look at the moron who got a million dollars 4 times for burning themself on McDonalds Coffee. (gee I didn't know the coffee would be hot because the cup didn't say contents are hot) (heres where you note that I ramble LOL)
People in this world don't have to show morals if not binded by law. (and even some break that) basic humanity, and the greater good help normal people to make sound minded decisions to render aid in the means they are capable. (even if that means a cell phone 911 call)
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Kinne on
-
I have to shake my head whenever there is a news story on TV where someone is struck and killed by a hid and run driver, and family members of the victim are interviewed and are pleading for the driver to come forward so they can "have closeure" . They are actually looking for a face ... a name ... someone to which they can direct their hate and their revenge.
It is what they call "seeking justice".
Should the driver come forward ? Of course, he has broken the law and needs to face the consequences. But human nature is such that we need someone to blame for the bad things that occure in our lives, be it somebody elses fault or our own.
If someone initially causes harm to another due to bad intent or neglegance then they should be held accountable, but anyone endeavoring to render assistance the wronged party through good intent or kind act, then they need the protection of a "good samaritan" policy.
-
Permalink Reply by Curt Varone on
-
Bob
I think you hit the nail on the head when you use the term revenge. If you have not personally witnessed a family ripped apart by a death where "someone" was responsible - it is easy to assume its about money. But there is so much more at work.
Curt
-
Permalink Reply by Mick Mayers on
-
I'm hoping to do this subject justice in as brief of a posting as possible, since I'm in the middle of something, yet I feel compelled to discuss this. Without oversimplifying the situation, this is clearly a case of the lawyers not being happy with the amount of money they currently are having shoveled in their laps. While I agree there is a need for injury litigation, etc. for cases with merit, the whole tort system has become a revolving door of people looking to shift blame for their own stupid actions to someone else, and to make a profit to boot.
Now that people are reluctant to stop and render aid (for fear of a lawsuit), the logic is to force them to stop by declaring that you have a duty to act regardless of your current status of on- or off-duty, whether you have the tools to do the job, or whether or not you even feel like the risks outweigh the benefits.
There are several studies, some of the most interesting done by Latane and Darley regarding "bystander effect" and the reulctance to render aid. We (first responders) pull over and help because it's drilled into our psyche; we see someone who needs assistance, we stop. End of story, its what we do. For the bystander, there has to be some compelling reason to stop, especially if they suspect no one else will render aid, because there are too many incentives NOT to stop, i.e.; possible litigation.
There are many studies on various themes of this suject, one of which involved subjects, left in a room alone or with another, then the room suddenly filling up with smoke. When the subject was alone and the room filled up with smoke, generally, the person would initiate some call for assistance. However, if with another, and the room began to fill with smoke and the other person in the room acted as if nothing was wrong, more often than not, the subject would NOT call for assistance until much later in the experiment. In the Kitty Genovese case, the bystanders assumed someone else would initiate action.
The moral of this post, which is longer than I desired and I need to get back to work, is that we shouldn't need litigation to compel us to action. Good Samaritan statutes help us do the right thing (render aid) provided we didn't have a duty to act and we don't do anything negligent. That should be sufficient to compel us to assist people, because it's not as if any of us don't want to assist people. But if I stop and yank someone out of a burning car and they decide to sue me because I "hurt their neck" (despite their imminent demise), the legal system and all the money-grubbing lawyers involved should say, "Hey, this is ridiculous, this guy was just trying to help a fellow human being".
I apologize for any typos, I don't have time to proof this and I'm late for my next appointment.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
For every lawsuit that is filed against someone who rendered aid, it erodes at the compassion shown the next time someone needs aid. As long as the court system allows these grubbers a forum, they will line up and not only choke the legal system, but will stifle that willingness for us to help each other.
The inner strength and morality to render aid to someone is strong in many of us, but the indifference and selfishness in others to continue on without stopping because they will be late for their dinner, hair appt. or TV show is just as strong.
Unfortunately, it is what our society has become. No one stops to help with a flat tire anymore. No one will offer their cell phone to someone else who is broke down, lost or hurt. We are afraid of our own shadows and WE are more important than the person laying there bleeding out. It's sad, sick and disgusting.
-
-
You brought up another interesting subject. If someone walks by wearing a fire department Tshirt and someone recognises them as a firefighter (on a department that provides EMS services) would that person potentially be charged with Failure to render aid? The Judicial system is backlogged with people like this all trying for the revenge factor (thats a good term) and the others who simply are scum bags trying to score a quick buck. These people generally are the ones who score the 6 figure+ settlements, while people who have lawsuits where money is deserved rightfully have to wait because the courts dockett is too busy. We know the judicial system needs reform, just as well as the Judiciary sector knows they need reform
-
-
It could be us there with wide eyes hurt on the ground watching people walking by asking ourselves, why aren't they helping me.
-
-
The short answer is no. Unlike members of the thin blue line, FFs and EMS personnel off duty have no duty to act. We can even walk up and start to render aide and then say "shite...I dont want to get in teh middle of this" and walk away. Its not abandonment or neglect because we have to off duty t act. Now, could I sleep with myself at night if I had the skills and my jump bag was always in the back seat which is always is and I made no effort to render aide, no I couldnt.
This also brings another topic to my mind: do FF's have any powers or arrest or detention. I know an EMT has the right to order the lookie loo's away from a scene and if they dont they are perfectly within the law to have that person prosecuted for interfering with EMS, but do FFs have any "arrest" or " law enforcement powers" of our own?
-
Permalink Reply by Charles Hazen on
-
Well I see it this way, as a firefighter we can either help or not. I was trained to help my community and safegaurd the helpless. And if there is a law passed to prevent us from doing our job then I'll give it about a month before they start to change that law. But weather there is a law or not we as firefighters and EMTs have a duty to protect our community.
-
Permalink Reply by Ed Laugesen on
-
I look at this issue with the following. 1. If someone is injured or dies at the hand of another then that person must face the legal consequences of the law and if a crime was commited they must pay the price, but everyone that sues another individual should remember A. The lawyer will get their share before you get anything i.e.-if the defendant does not have much the Lawyer will get it all and you get nothing. B. If there is a big payout from a company or institution, who do you think pays for it in the end--YOU-- from Insurance companies to merchantile companies they pass the cost on to the consumer. C. Is it right for a family to become millionaires overnight because a family member was killed, NO. If the person was injured then they deserve what ever it takes to give them a potentially good life at the scale that they were in and have their medical costs covered. 2. Just because someone used a product for something it was not intended to be used for and got hurt they should be responsible and own up to it, not blame someone else. i.e.- the father that buys his 16 year old son a high performance fast car for his birthday and when his Son goes out and kills himself the Father wants to sue the Car Dealership and manufacturer because they did not tell him the car was fast and could be dangerous.
And lastly to ILDisasterEMT, in looking at your profile I presume that you are young and relative new to this profession and life itself. You need to read the laws and rules for your State and others, don't just take what someone tells you for granted. Most States (I do not know about Illionis) have good samaritan acts as laws, these were put in place initially to protect Doctors and Nurses who were out of their element and rendering aid from lawsuits if they did not have everything needed to help a person in need and have since been extended to just about anyone who renders aid in a responsible manner.(This means if you have been trained to do it you should be okay{ Basic stuff only, bandages, splints, etc.}) Most places accept that any non invasive first aid treatment is good, advanced practices can only be performed by licensed personnel like Doctors. I think in a lot of instances (I was one once) EMT's get the big head, an EMT is really nothing more than a well trained first aider, we are trained to be able to assess people better, but all of the skills except O2 and BP's used to be taught in the advanced first aid class from the American Red Cross. Sorry if you think I have been hard on you but I have a bunch of young folks getting into the profession here too, and after 35 years it worries me that they don't really do all of the homework they should, too many times it is someone elses fault. I had one young guy tell me basicly that it was my fault that he did not know how to check the oil and water on an engine, I asked him if he had ever asked anyone to show him and his asnwer was (No, it's your responsibility to teach me, I should not have to ask) I got long winded and a little off subject but the bottom line is "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONES ACTIONS" no one can control what you do but you.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
