How much help are you legally required to give a person in need?

[butler1850]

@usedtobe

• • believe it or not, there was a time when male grownups actually carried small, mulit-blade, folding knives as a matter of course. Shocking and amazing, huh?

Was? I have one on me right now, as do many sitting near me. Of course, I am an IT worker, so we’re a bit odd to start with.

[usedtobe]

@butler1850

Was? I have one on me right now, as do many sitting near me. Of course, I am an IT worker, so we’re a bit odd to start with.

lax security in IT - how unusual

[alice_in_wonderland]

I just completed my 1st aid certification in Canada and I have a question:

We were expressly told that a first responder cannot declare someone dead only a physician can do that.

Therefore the two times that a first responser can quit administering aid is if:

1. someone more qualified comes along and takes over
   or
2. the first responder is physically exhausted/in danger and cannot continue

Is this unique in Canada or are some of you other folks misremembering? Watching US television shows (an excellent source of the truth) suggests that only a Dr. can declare a person dead.

[drachillix]

@BiblioCat

I’m an EMT, and I’m covered by the Good Samaritan Laws, as long as I act within the scope of my training. If I tried to trach someone, screwed up and they died, I could be sued. (JFTR, I’d lose my certification if I trached someone - I’m not trained on how to do it)
In my state, we are bound by what is called ‘Duty To Act,’ which means we’re supposed to stop and give aid when we can, but contrary to what SiamSam posted about his girlfriend the nurse, who’s going to know if you drive on past an accident? It’s not like they stop cars and check to see who’s qualified to help.

I used to work in the biz myself (EMT), I know all too well. In a nutshell, if you drive by, nobodys gonna know.

[cainxinth]

In US common law there are very few legal duties to take affirmative action.

In cases of civil liability there is no duty to act except in two distinct circumstances:

1. If you caused peril to another you must attempt to rescue them unless doing so would endanger your own life.

2. If you have certain pre-existing relationship with the person in peril (such as a family member, a guest at your hotel, or a customer in your store) you also have a duty to undertake reasonable rescue even if you weren’t the cause of the danger.

To be held criminally liable for failing to take some action (including the rescue of another) three elements must be met:

1. You must owe a legal duty to act. That duty can be statutory, such as the statutory requirement that you file a tax return every year; contractual, like a nurse who is required by her employment contract to aid others; relationship based, like a parent’s duty to care for their child; or like in civil cases it can arise from a voluntary assumption of care, or if you created the peril.

2. You must have knowledge of the danger. In the case of your taxes a person can’t argue that they don’t have to file returns because they didn’t know they had to (even if that’s the case) because actual knowledge is not required, it can be construed from the circumstances, and in that case the court can say the government makes the laws public and does everything it can to let citizens know their obligations and thus ignorance of the law is no defense. The nurse however does not breach her duty for failing to care for a patient on the third floor when she is downstairs in the cafeteria on her lunch break. Nor is a parent held responsible when their child is injured and not cared for when away at summer camp. There is one exception to the knowledge requirement; if the defendant had a duty to be vigilant, such as lifeguard, the fact that he didn’t know anyone was in peril cannot relieve liability.

3. Rescue must be reasonably possible and not endanger you.

---

So basically if you see a stranger drowning and you’re a world class swimmer holding a life preserver you can pull up a chair and watch him die without any civil or criminal repercussions. Unless your state has one of those “good samaritan” laws, but they are very rare and narrowly construed by courts.

[Drum_God]

Just took my CPR/AED refresher class today. (Texas law requires teachers of marching band to have CPR/AED training on an annual basis. Today was my day.)

Anyway, we learned that there are only three conditions in which we may stop rendering aid: scene becomes unsafe, a more qualified person arrives and assists, we become too exhausted to continue.

We were told that we have a duty to act as a teacher, but we can only act within the scope of our training. Performing a trach is not within the training and is not advised. I do not believe that we are required to act if the scene occurs outside the school or school supervision. (I often have students outside school, but they are under my supervision as a school employee.)

Several folks upthread have mentioned stopping aid if the victim is dead. This surprises me. Who is to say when the victim is dead? I don’t want to make that decision. Certainly, some cases are obvious. “Billy’s head landed over yonder.” is probably going to be fatal. However, an unconscious person is unconscious, not dead. I’m not going to be the one who decides he/she is dead. In Texas, I believe that only a physician or magistrate can legally declare someone dead. I’m not either of those.

[slaphead]

@cainxinth

So basically if you see a stranger drowning and you’re a world class swimmer holding a life preserver you can pull up a chair and watch him die without any civil or criminal repercussions. Unless your state has one of those “good samaritan” laws, but they are very rare and narrowly construed by courts.

In a civil law class the lecturer used the example of walking through a park, seeing a small child drowning in a shallow duckpond, and ignoring them because you didn’t want to get your nice shoes and suit all muddy. Nice to know that there is such cross-jurisdiction commonality of approach

[SeanArenas]

@Drum God

Several folks upthread have mentioned stopping aid if the victim is dead. This surprises me. Who is to say when the victim is dead? I don’t want to make that decision. Certainly, some cases are obvious. “Billy’s head landed over yonder.” is probably going to be fatal. However, an unconscious person is unconscious, not dead. I’m not going to be the one who decides he/she is dead. In Texas, I believe that only a physician or magistrate can legally declare someone dead. I’m not either of those.

I always wonder about this - when you’re watching a medical show, and they say, “the patient is dead,” there’s obviously some things you can do … reviving them through AED, adrenaline to the heart, depending on the show and environment perhaps even more.

So why do other people try to stop the person who keeps trying and trying? “He’s dead.” Dr. keeps pumping on his chest. “Doctor, he’s dead.” Doctor gives another shot of adrenaline and shouts “Clear” to give another jolt. “Doctor, stop, he’s dead!”

Why not let the doctor continue for another 2 minutes or 5 minutes if it makes him happy? What’s he going to do, make the patient more dead? What if the patient suddenly blinks his eyes and sits up (as happens on some shows) - boy do the nurses and assisting doctors feel bad then. “I mean, good job doctor, glad you didn’t give up!”
Anyhow, I think the 3 items listed are correct for America - we can stop giving aid if the scene becomes unsafe, if we’re exhausted, or if a more qualified caregiver takes over.

I think you can also stop in order to summon more qualified aid. For instance, if you “began” giving care by dragging someone away from a burning structure, and you’re the only person around capable of calling 911 … can you then leave that person to call 911, and then return to give CPR/First Aid? Or, once you decide to start dragging person from burning building, are you now tethered to them and can’t leave them to call 911?

A lot of people don’t realize this, but CPR does not typically revive a person in the field, as you often see on Baywatch and other TV shows and movies. Generally, CPR only keeps a person alive long enough for a qualified med tech to arrive and use an AED or other methods to restart the heart or breathing. And CPR is very exhausting - I think upthread someone asked if you can stop after an hour - wow, you can last an hour at CPR? My instructors have always said it’s best to get a partner and switch off every 3 to 5 minutes so you do’nt get exhausted.
Also, I haven’t had my class in about 16 months (every 2 years), but I heard that this year the law changed on breaths per pumps … I hear you no longer give breaths during CPR, is that correct? I guess I should go to the Red Cross site and look

[clairobscur]

@Wallenstein

In the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death, absent any other means of prosecuting the photogs chasing the car there was an attempt to prosecute them for not rendering aid (which sounds similar to the Quebec law upthread).

Yes, in France there’s a duty to render aid, with stiff penalties (up to a 7 years sentence, or something like that). But it’s interpreted by the courts more narrowly than most French people tend to assume. Basically, you don’t have any duty to put yourself in harm’s way (you must throw the lifebelt to the person drowning, but aren’t required to jump in the river), but on the other hand, you always have a duty to seek help (calling the police, emergency services, etc…). You can’t just sit on your lawn chair.
The harshest sentences are generally reserved to criminal cases where the defendant didn’t commit a crime, nor can be considered an accomplice, but only displayed “criminal indifference”. For instance two men who agreed to wait by the door while their friend was axe-murdering his wife, or one guy who watched TV while his buddies were raping a girl. Often used against spouses of an abusing parent, too.
You can also be prosecuted for not denouncing a crime, or even for not preventing it (rare, because people seldom are in a position to prevent a crime in a legal way and without putting themselves at risk. I assume it could apply for instance to a parent who would watch his kid drowning a friend in the swimming pool). So, all situations described in this thread would be prosecutable here.
I’m not aware at all of the arguments used against the paparazzis in Diana’s case.

[muldoonthief]

@SeanArenas

I think you can also stop in order to summon more qualified aid. For instance, if you “began” giving care by dragging someone away from a burning structure, and you’re the only person around capable of calling 911 … can you then leave that person to call 911, and then return to give CPR/First Aid? Or, once you decide to start dragging person from burning building, are you now tethered to them and can’t leave them to call 911?

FWIW, every first aid class I’ve taken has always emphasized - call 911 first. Maybe take a second to stop severe bleeding, but always always always call 911, or get someone else to do it. Otherwise you can wind up in a situation where you’re alone with no equipment and no training half an hour later watching the person die because the paramedics never arrived. Getting the whole emergency services ball rolling is part of providing care, and realistically is probably the best care you can provide.

[Gfactor]

@whole bean

However, as a property owner, you owe different standards of care to people who come on to your property based on their status as an invitee, a licensee or a trespasser (google the terms).

FWIW, the common law distinction between invitee, licensee, and trespasser has been abandoned in many jurisdictions. See Harold L. Grilliot, “Courts’ Abandonment of the Common Law Classification of Trespasser, Licensee and Invitee,” American Business Law Journal Vol. 10, Iss. 3; p. 284 (Winter 1973) and Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35, 2001-Ohio-128: http://www.romingerlegal.com/Ohio_case_law/2001/2001-ohio-128.html (“Ohio is one of only three states that have not either created a special duty for trespassing children or done away with distinctions of duty based upon a person’s status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.”)

[Gfactor]

[QUOTE=Omega Glory]
How does this work in general?

As a general rule, “an affirmative duty to act only arises when a special relationship exists between the parties.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\9902\1194&invol=1

Does the fact that the lady stuck to the toilet was welcome in her boyfriend’s home play into it?

It could. Special relationships exist in cases involving:

physician/patient,

parent/child, master/servant, landowner/invitee, common carrier/passenger,

innkeeper/guest, and certain custodial relationships.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\9606\95-2539&invol=1

Is boyfriend/girlfriend or social guest a category?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ut&vol=supopin&invol=gilger (social host/guest relationship not special relationship)

If I hire someone to fix my roof and he slips off and breaks his back, am I legally (obviously, morally I would be) obligated to call 911?

Master/servant is one of the special relationships listed above. So it’s possible.

What if the roofer is related to me, or is a friend?

Not clear.

I’m I required to help a burgler who cuts himself on my window breaking into my home?

With limited exceptions, a person has no affirmative duty to control the conduct of another, to protect another from harm, or to render aid to someone already injured through no act or fault of the person. See Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 235 (Utah 1993); Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, 415 (Utah 1986). . . . However, there is an exception to this general rule. Under certain circumstances, a “special relationship” may be found to exist between the one upon whom a duty is sought to be imposed and the party to be controlled, see Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1964), or someone injured or threatened with injury. See Restatement § 314A. In such cases, the special relationship gives rise to a duty to control another or to act to protect another or render aid to another. SeeWilson v. Valley Mental Health, 969 P.2d 416, 419 (Utah 1998); Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236; Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Beach, 726 P.2d at 415. The “essence” of a special relationship creating the duty to protect or aid another is “dependency by one party upon the other or mutual dependence between the parties.” Beach, 726 P.2d at 416 (citing Restatement § 314A cmt. b).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ut&vol=supopin&invol=gilger

Probably not.

[Gfactor]

@Omega Glory

How does this work in general?

As a general rule, “an affirmative duty to act only arises when a special relationship exists between the parties.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\9902\1194&invol=1

Does the fact that the lady stuck to the toilet was welcome in her boyfriend’s home play into it?

It could. Special relationships exist in cases involving:

physician/patient,

parent/child, master/servant, landowner/invitee, common carrier/passenger,

innkeeper/guest, and certain custodial relationships.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\9606\95-2539&invol=1

Is boyfriend/girlfriend or social guest a category?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ut&vol=supopin&invol=gilger (social host/guest relationship not special relationship)

If I hire someone to fix my roof and he slips off and breaks his back, am I legally (obviously, morally I would be) obligated to call 911?

Master/servant is one of the special relationships listed above. So it’s possible.

What if the roofer is related to me, or is a friend?

Not clear.

I’m I required to help a burgler who cuts himself on my window breaking into my home?

With limited exceptions, a person has no affirmative duty to control the conduct of another, to protect another from harm, or to render aid to someone already injured through no act or fault of the person. See Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 235 (Utah 1993); Beach v. University of Utah, 726 P.2d 413, 415 (Utah 1986). . . . However, there is an exception to this general rule. Under certain circumstances, a “special relationship” may be found to exist between the one upon whom a duty is sought to be imposed and the party to be controlled, see Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1964), or someone injured or threatened with injury. See Restatement § 314A. In such cases, the special relationship gives rise to a duty to control another or to act to protect another or render aid to another. SeeWilson v. Valley Mental Health, 969 P.2d 416, 419 (Utah 1998); Higgins, 855 P.2d at 236; Madsen v. Borthick, 850 P.2d 442, 444 (Utah 1993); Beach, 726 P.2d at 415. The “essence” of a special relationship creating the duty to protect or aid another is “dependency by one party upon the other or mutual dependence between the parties.” Beach, 726 P.2d at 416 (citing Restatement § 314A cmt. b).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ut&vol=supopin&invol=gilger

Probably not.

[SeanArenas]

@muldoonthief

FWIW, every first aid class I’ve taken has always emphasized - call 911 first. Maybe take a second to stop severe bleeding, but always always always call 911, or get someone else to do it. Otherwise you can wind up in a situation where you’re alone with no equipment and no training half an hour later watching the person die because the paramedics never arrived. Getting the whole emergency services ball rolling is part of providing care, and realistically is probably the best care you can provide.

That’s why I was using the example of pulling an unconscious person from a burning building. If you know that the person will be engulfed in flames in 60 seconds, I don’t think you run and make a 4 minute call to 911, then come back and see what you do. You first drag them out of the burning building, and then call 911. This way, there’s actually a living person for the paramedics to see when they get there, as opposed to just charred remains.

So, I wanted to know how U.S. law applies there. If I grab dude by his ankles and drag him out of the fire, have I begun giving care?

In your example, if a person was “bleeding out,” (has an arterial wound), and I apply a compress to stop the imminent danger, and then leave him to call 911, am I considered to have begun giving care?

[Drum_God]

@muldoonthief

FWIW, every first aid class I’ve taken has always emphasized - call 911 first. Maybe take a second to stop severe bleeding, but always always always call 911, or get someone else to do it. Otherwise you can wind up in a situation where you’re alone with no equipment and no training half an hour later watching the person die because the paramedics never arrived. Getting the whole emergency services ball rolling is part of providing care, and realistically is probably the best care you can provide.

We were taught CHECK ----->CALL----->CARE in the class yesterday.
[ol]
[li]CHECK: Check the scene for danger (downed power lines, fire, active gunfire, etc.). Check the victim (“Hey, are you okay?”).[/li][li]CALL: Call emergency services or appoint someone to do so. Don’t make a general announcement like “Someone call 911!” Point to an individual and say “You call 911.” Make an individual responsible.[/li][li]CARE: Give care to the victim[/li][/ol]

Only move the victim if you must move him/her because the scene is or will become dangerous, if moving him/her is required to treat, or if moving him/her is required to reach someone with more serious injuries.

[Omega_Glory]

Thanks to all that replied, and to **Gfactor ** for the links.

@Dewey Finn

Are you thinking of the case of David Cash?

He was a UC Berkeley student who visited a Nevada casino with a friend. He walked into a womens’ room (I think he followed the friend into the room), where over the top of the stall partition, he saw his friend struggling with a seven-year-old girl. He claimed to have attempted to get his friend’s attention, and then walked out of the bathroom and did not do anything to stop the friend. (Later the friend admitted to him that he molested and murdered the child.) The Time magazine article to which I linked has a discussion of the legality of doing nothing when you witness a crime.

Yes, that was the one, thanks.