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 Curt Varone on
-
Have you all seen the news reports on the recent New York City case where 2 EMTs are alleged to have ignored requests to come to the aid of a dying woman?It happened on December 9th, 2009. Horrendous fact pattern.... but it goes back to the basis for my question about duty to act.
If you are interested I have some more on this topic on my blog www.firelawblog.com. I'd love to get your feedback on this tragic case.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
because the total cost of torts (including lawsuits and insurance) is less than 1% of the cost of healthcare in the US. Tort reform is a red herring.
In Maryland (the laws are state by state) anyone acting within their training and not getting paid is protected by "Good Samaritan" laws, so this is a non-issue. "Within your training" means to your skill level, so if an EMT attempted to splint a limb, he's coverd. If he attempted heart surgery, not so much. I agree with Blair4360 that meds may require medical command, but you probably don't have that stuff in your trunk kit!
-
-
In this circumstance, you are protected by your state's Good Samaritan laws, so the case will be dismissed. Remember, any bozo can initiate a lawsuit, but they are often dismissed outright by the judge.
Most of the BS lawsuits you read about are either misrepresented in the news or totally false. (http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp). Heck, read up on the hot McDonalds Coffee Lady - it's rather surprising http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
I have issues with this also...but, not in extremes such as you mention...ie blind person...open manhole...it may not be a "legal" duty to act but what about a moral duty....too many times in this modern world people look the other way rather than to address the issue at hand...Have we as a society gotten that callous that we ignore another in a time of need...? I see that I am preaching to the choir so to speak...if the folks here had that attitude then I strongly suspect that they would not be in this line of work...whether it be as a career or as a Vollie....So let me just say thank-you.....thank-you for doing what you do and thank-you for reenforcing to me that not all people have their heads stuck in the sand (or someplace else...LOL) Stay safe my Brothers and Sisters...Keep the Faith.......Paul
-
-
Curt in this case I feel they DID have a duty to act...they were hired to act, they were trained to act and they failed to do so...they should be fired, license pulled and criminal and civil actions taken...this was totally inexcusable.....and in case anyone asks ...YES, I AM A HARD ASS....at least were patient care is concerned....Paul
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
