Do you have to call 911 if you injure an intruder?

Factual Questions
61

You got me curious, so I’ve been thinking about it under Canadian criminal law. What follows is me just noodling around with the hypothetical, and is not legal advice.

Our version of manslaughter is often called “unlawful act” manslaughter. What that means is that there must have been an underlying unlawful act that contributed to the death, even in the absence of an intent to kill.

The Criminal Code also allows the use of reasonable force to protect one’s life. We don’t have a castle doctrine (at least not in the US sense; our castle doctrine relates to search warrants), but if you’re trapped in your house by an armed intruder, and can’t retreat, reasonable force can be used to protect yourself.

So let’s say that’s what happened. You used reasonable force, the intruder is out cold and bleeding out. Self-defence, so no underlying unlawful act, so it’s okay if he dies while you dither about calling 911?

Except, we also have an offence called the duty to provide necessaries of life. It generally applies to family members in your care, but there is also a more general version:

What does “under his charge” mean? I’ve not researched it, and I don’t know if the issue has ever come up, but if you’ve incapacitated someone to the point where they are detained or otherwise unable to withdraw, I can certainly see an argument that the person is under your charge, and that failure to call 911 would be a failure to provide necessities of life.

If you were to do that, and the person dies, that could potentially qualify as the unlawful act that is necessary to support a manslaughter charge.

You wouldn’t be liable for the initial self-defence, but the failure to provide necessaries (ie the 911 call), might be sufficient.

All of which is not legal advice, but just thinking about the possible legal implications of the hypothetical.

62

As others have pointed out above, car accidents are actually a special case. Most jurisdictions have special laws for accidents, even if you are not at fault, that make it a crime to leave and fail to render aid. That doesn’t apply in other situations (another hypothetical if what if this did all happen in a car, and it was a attempted carjacking? Could you be prosecuted for leaving the wannabe carjacker to bleed out on the pavement? What if he hit the hood of your car as he fell, would that change the answer?)

63

Seconding.

And I will add, even from entirely the point of view of immediate self-interest, which is not a point of view anyone should be using as their only guide (partial guide, yes; only guide, no) to such situations: suppose that guy bleeding out on the floor isn’t quite as far gone as you thought? suppose with a burst of desperate strength they grab your phone, toss it, and start to strangle you? or that their accomplice, who you hadn’t realized was there, does so? Aren’t you going to really wish you’d called 911 while you had the chance, and they’re already on the way?

64

This is not a bad idea. or call 911 and tell the Police- “Sorry, I have called my lawyer and I need to talk to him first”.

Yep.

Also Calling 911 has been used as evidence of innocence, while concealing a situation has been used as evidence of guilt.

Kill someone and bury him in your backyard, and you will be in much bigger trouble than if you called the Police.

Yeah, and if the DA was to indict you, a big question that would make the jury look at you with “Guilty” is the fact you just let the guy bleed out.

65

Okay. So what if you are in a public park, and witness someone injured by accident. Maybe a freak thing where a tree limb falls on the victim and appears to have injured them seriously. You are the only person around.

Do you have any legal liability if you neither call for help nor attempt to render aid? Let’s say there are security cameras, so when the body is found and they look back at the footage, you are clearly seen to have been there, looked at the injured person, and just walked away.

(I certainly think you have a moral responsibility to attempt to help. But I’m asking whether you have a legal responsibility.)

66

As I understand it, on the whole, in most US jurisdictions none (though IANAL, and I’m sure there are lots of edge cases where you there is )

There are no “good Samaritan” laws in the US (there are some laws that are called that but they don’t make bystanders liable, instead they ensure medical professionals who do help are not liable if they cause injury inadvertently)

67

According to my first aid classes (and I’ve taken several) the typical US good Samaritan law protects from liability well-meaning non-medical personnel who make reasonable attempts to help a person in medical distress. Maybe they protect medical professionals, too, but first aid classes definitely tell you that you, person being trained in very basic stuff, are legally protected.

68

Ok, but in other countries (e.g. France IIRC) it actually makes bystanders liable if they don’t offer help

69

And you say that in the US there is no such requirement? I suppose it might vary by state. But I’d think that just ignoring a person bleeding out would be depraved indifference to life, and might constitute manslaughter.

70

Usually criminal law requires that the accused’s actions caused the harm. Is inaction an action for the purpose of depraved indifference? (we don’t use that term in Canada, so I’m not familiar with how it works in the States.)

71

Duty To Rescue laws exist in 10 states. Massachusetts is one, and the crime in the Seinfeld finale happened in Massachusetts. These laws are also called Good Samaritan laws.

In this example, any shooter has to keep in mind that the person they have shot is an unknown person to the law. You actually have to show that they broke into your home, were threatening you, and that you shot them lawfully. This is certainly possible, but it’s why shady behavior isn’t a good idea, lest someone not believe your story.

72

I agree. The season finale of Seinfeld popularized the misconception that Good Samaritan laws confer a duty to act when in reality they shield helpful bystanders from liability for harm caused by acts intended to render aid.

Depraved indifference (aka depraved heart) partially fits the OP’s scenario. However, if we’re going to explore this as a potential homicide, the challenge is that intent alone is not a crime. A crime also requires an act or omission causally connected to that intent, at least in the US. That’s part of the debate above in the thread about whether one’s omission violates a duty to act under the OP’s scenario. And U.S. law requires that the act/omission be clearly prohibited or required in order to impose criminal liability (that’s the fair notice requirement under the Due Process clause of the Constitution).

The statutes and cases on depraved heart/indifference with which I’m familiar require an act. The classic/textbook cases include driving a car into a crowd or initiating a game of Russian roulette. The perpetrator acted without regard for human life when they acted. I’m aware of no precedent involving an omission absent a clear statutory duty to act (e.g., child welfare laws that require providing sustenance to one’s child).

IMO, the OP’s scenario is so specific and uncommon that I doubt there is a precedent in statute or case law that confers an obligation to act in a timely manner to (potentially) save the intruder’s life by calling EMS.
.
The best I can come up with to potentially impose liability for homicide would depend on the specific facts. If you wait 10 minutes to call 911 but the intruder expired, probably no duty to act. But if you sit and watch the intruder bleed out for four hours, there may be a case that you impliedly consented to their continued presence in your home (by not calling the police to remove a trespasser) and now you have a duty render aid to a de facto “guest” on your property. I concede this feels like quite a stretch absent clear precedent.

ETA: Partly ninja’d by @Jay_Z but question/caveat below.

73

As noted above, I think “Good Samaritan law” is a misnomer. Also, do duty to rescue laws confer criminal or civil liability? (Yes, I realize Seinfeld implied criminal liability but I can’t consider Seinfeld controlling precedent, as much as I’d like to. :slight_smile: )

74

It’s a fine. Armed robbery is covered, so they got that part right.

75

C didn’t cause the life or death situation. C didn’t injure A. My thinking is C would not be criminally liable except possibly in states that have a level of manslaughter that covers negligence. Not all states do.

76

You can’t have negligence (in a legal sense) without duty. If there is no duty to act, then there is no negligence for a failure to act, same as with crimes of intent. The difference between a crime of intent and a crime of negligence isn’t whether you played an active role in causing the harm, but rather whether you intended for the harm to occur at all. However, both require either an act that causes the harm, or else a failure to perform an act that one is legally obligated to do in order for an omission by itself to rise to the level of criminal conduct on par with an action.

Up thread, I provided a factual cite—so far the only one I’ve seen in this thread hat actually addresses the scenario posed by the OP—that explains when an omission may amount to criminal conduct such as may give rise to criminal liability. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

77

In Florida, you do not not have to help or call 911. If they die, you do have to report it, though.

78

It looks like you do have to act in 10 states, and presumably don’t have to in the other 40.

@Jay_Z , do you have a list of the 10 states, by any chance?

79

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island, California, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, and Washington. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/in-which-states-do-i-have-a-duty-to-help/

80

Though of the laws listed there almost all have nothing to with the OP (they are about things like sex abuse). The only one that seems to apply is Minnesota and that’s only a misdemeanor:

  1. Wisconsin – In Wisconsin, if you know that a crime is being committed, and that a victim has suffered or may suffer bodily harm, you have a duty to call police or provide assistance
  2. Minnesota – If you are at the scene of an emergency and you know that someone has suffered grave physical harm, or could be hurt, you have a duty to give “reasonable assistance.” Reasonable assistance can mean calling or attempting to call police or medical personnel.
  3. Rhode Island – If you know that person is a victim of sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, or armed robbery and you were at the scene of the crime, then you need to report the crime to law enforcement. Failure to do so is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of $500 to $1,000.
  4. California -- When you reasonably know or believe that a child under 14 years of age has been a victim of murder, rape, or lewd and lascivious acts, you must notify law enforcement. Failure to do so is excused if you feared for your own safety, or you are related to either the victim or the offender.
  5. Florida -- In Florida, if you witness a sexual battery, you need to immediately report the offense to law enforcement. Violation of this law is a first degree misdemeanor