Duty To Act?

[ERDoc]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we are telling the OP not to believe everything he reads on the internet, on an anonymous Internet forum?

[paramedicmike]

Well played, Doc.

[Arctickat]

Does anyone else find it ironic that we are telling the OP not to believe everything he reads on the internet, on an anonymous Internet forum?

Not at all, it's just part of providing the OP with all the information. No different from informed consent or refusal.

[ERDoc]

Arctic, I think you might have missed my point.

[Chief1C]

I can get compensated for acting?

Cool! I'm gonna hold my breath till I see a check. I wonder how long I'll have to hold my breat........... *thud*

[Arctickat]

Arctic, I think you might have missed my point.

[CPhT]

Ok, I'm finally back.

Here is the Good Samaritan law:

http://legislature.m...x?mcl-333-20965

Now, the major court ruling for Duty to Act in Michigan is not a case of EMS/ Fire but a case of a woman who shacked up with a guy under the agreement that she could live with him provided she took care of him. She was not related to him, and he was disabled to the point where he could not sustain his own life independently. She was to use his money and goods to feed and care for him, in exchange for room and board for herself. She eventually stopped holding up her end of the bargain and he died from starvation/ neglect. She was eventually charged with Manslaughter because she basically let the man die in his basement and didn't attempt to call for help in any manner. The court's opinion on that situation:

“If a person who sustains to another the legal relation of protector, as husband to wife, parent to child,

master to seaman, etc., knowing such person to be in peril of life, willfully or negligently fails to make such

reasonable and proper efforts to rescue him as he might have done without jeopardizing his own life or the lives

of others, he is guilty of manslaughter at least, if by reason of his omission of duty the dependent person dies.

150 Mich.—14

“ So one who from domestic relationship, public duty, voluntary choice, or otherwise, has the custody and

care of a human being, helpless either from imprisonment, infancy, sickness, age, imbecility, or other incapacity

of mind or body, is bound to execute the charge with proper diligence and will be held guilty of manslaughter,

if by culpable negligence he lets the helpless creature die.” 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 197, notes

and cases cited.

Now that paints a pretty grim picture for EMS professionals, because of our Public Duty, and our Voluntary Choice. We also care for those in infancy, sickness, age, imbecility, and other incapacity of mind or body. However, unless we are being compensated for the work (paid/ career EMS), or unless we are voluntarily entering into an agreement to care for a person (volunteer EMS), we are not LEGALLY obliged to help. Morally, perhaps, but not legally. And that is where the Supreme Court ruling comes into play:

Mr. Justice Field in United States v. Knowles, supra.

“In the absence of such obligations, it is undoubtedly the moral duty of every person to extend to others

assistance when in danger; and if such efforts should be omitted by any one when they could be made

without imperiling his own life, he would, by his conduct, draw upon himself the just censure and reproach of

good men; but this is the only punishment to which he would be subjected by society.”

The People Vs Beardsley, 150 Mich 206

http://www.micourthi...s/beardsley.pdf

Edited August 16, 2012 by CPhT

[tamaith]

I think it depends on which state you live in. I was told by my emt instructor that Pa does not have a duty to act

[ERDoc]

Every provider has a duty to act, it is a matter of when that duty starts that varies by state.

[chbare]

Another potential consideration: Re-evaluate the need to place EMS stickers all over your vehicle?