legally, must we help someone in extreme danger?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mchaley

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
21
I may be way off on this but I think if there was a kid choking on something and a Doctor was nearby but, say, on vacation, he'd be held responsible if he did nothing and the kid died.
So, if Doctors, nurses, EMT's, etc are legally obligated to help if someone is in need while they're off duty, are those who carry a firearm also obligated to help if someone was being mugged or something? If normal citizens aren't, are LEO's?
 
Law enforcement officers aren't even legally liable to protect you when they're on duty, ask the court system. Seriously, google the subject and you'll find a number of cases where the courts decision was it's not the job of the police to protect you.

So, if cops aren't legally liable to protect you, why would you be legally liable to come to the defense of a stranger in extreme danger? Now unless they issued you a "Superman" cape and tights when you got a concealed carry permit, keep one thing in mind if you see other people in danger. Whip out your cell phone and dial 911. After you've gotten yourself to a point of safety where the bad guy ain't coming to you for seconds after he dispatches his first victim.
 
Here's one for you:

In Texas you ARE legally obligated to stop and render aid to a law enforcement officer if he is in trouble!

I can't document this, but this is what my CHL instructor told us in class. While he didn't explain fully, his comment was render aid, "up to and including use of your CHL."

I chose not to tell my anti-CHL wife this :eek:

Q
 
^ So the police aren't legally required to protect us, but in some jurisdictions we're legally required to protect them? That's nice :rolleyes:
 
There is no legal requirement or obligation to come to the aid of another. In fact, while not actively discouraged, it is strongly recommended that you do so with great care and caution as the situation might not be what it appears.
 
Law enforcement officers aren't even legally liable to protect you when they're on duty, ask the court system. Seriously, google the subject and you'll find a number of cases where the courts decision was it's not the job of the police to protect you.

So, if cops aren't legally liable to protect you, why would you be legally liable to come to the defense of a stranger in extreme danger? Now unless they issued you a "Superman" cape and tights when you got a concealed carry permit, keep one thing in mind if you see other people in danger. Whip out your cell phone and dial 911. After you've gotten yourself to a point of safety where the bad guy ain't coming to you for seconds after he dispatches his first victim.
Police aren't legally required to protect any person but are they required to help you if you're being attacked? In my mind, protect means make sure you don't get hurt 24/7 which is understandable.

If a guy was getting stabbed and a cop just walked by, I can't imagine he wouldn't get charged.
 
There is no legal requirement or obligation to come to the aid of another. In fact, while not actively discouraged, it is strongly recommended that you do so with great care and caution as the situation might not be what it appears.
That's a good point.
 
The LEO thing is off-topic, but: The court decisions have to do with individual protection outside the direct view of an officer when there is no evidence of a crime that he can observe. "Peace in the community" is the deal. He is obligated to stop any crime he sees happening.

An individual citizen has no legal obligation to stop a crime. "Woulda/coulda/shoulda" is not part of law in that regard.
 
Art, I don't mean to be argumentative, but regarding the officer who sees the crime occurring, is he obliged to intervene by the law, or by his department's regulations?

In other words, if he doesn't engage, will he get a butt-chewing from his chief, or will he be brought up on charges before the court? To whom is his responsibility owed?
 
Art, I don't mean to be argumentative, but regarding the officer who sees the crime occurring, is he obliged to intervene by the law, or by his department's regulations?

In other words, if he doesn't engage, will he get a butt-chewing from his chief, or will he be brought up on charges before the court? To whom is his responsibility owed?
You've got it.

That cop has NO legal duty to "help" you, nor any legal liability for failing to do so.

What he probably does have is a CONTRACTUAL duty as a condition of employment to do so, subject to whatever limitations are contained in that contract and department policy. If he WILLFULLY fails to assist you, he MAY be administratively disciplined or fired, but it's a 100% lock that the FOP will back him to the hilt.

That cop's ONLY legal exposure is if there is proof of either:

conspiracy or collusion between him and your assailants
some sort of bias motive for not "helping" a member of a protected class
 
The only obligation that I am aware of is contractual in nature. If you are security officer or body guard and hired to protect a person then you are obligated to act if that person is attacked. If you are not hired to specifically protect a person then there is no obligation.
 
Normally, when a doctor treats someone, that creates a Dr./Patient relationship, which creates significant liabilities and fiduciary duties, and a requirement to see the treatment through to completion.

Many states put in "good samaritan laws", whose purpose is to protect professionals such as doctors and medics (and in some states, regular Joe Blows) from personal and professional liability should they come upon someone in need and render aid, clarifying that NO Dr./patient relationship is created.

In other words, prior to those laws being passed, the law provided them with motivation to NOT help, because choosing not to help created no liability, but choosing to help not only created them liability, but also subjected them to the full standards of medical care and diligence, which often are not possible under field conditions.
 
I don't think there is ever a legal obligation to help someone unless it is contractual, as stated above. eg. a security guard, on duty cop, etc. Medical personnel are not obligated (at least legally) to help someone they come across when not working.

Most I know will go out of their way to help someone, even if not working, but we are not required to. However, if I begin to render aid to someone, I am required to stay and continue to render aid until an equal or higher level of medical care arrives on scene to take over. ex. I can't stop to help someone at a car crash, find someone injured, and then leave until the ambulance arrives.
 
Some states have "assist laws" that are along the lines of failing to assist an officer when requested. Have I ever seen this used? No, I don't think there's an agency out there that will conscript you into service...too much liability.

Generally, a citizen has no "duty to act", nuff said.

As far as people yelling about LE having no requirement to protect you, it's a complicated subject. This stuff all originates from lawsuits because cops didn't investigate certain things in a thorough manner, slow response time, did a crappy job, etc.

It's all about the money. So what do you think happens? Courts rule that LE is not your personal man servant, body guard, etc. If someone says they are going to kill you, the pd is not going to assign a protective detail 24/7 and be held liable when you get sniped.

Obviously, if there's misfeasance/malfeasance you can sue. If LE was 10 seconds too late and did everything properly; that's part of the world we live in.
 
Here is the current state of the law, generally speaking, as some jurisdictions may vary:

You have no duty to come to the aid of another, whether it be to stop someone for drowning or choking, using your ccw to stop a crime, etc.

The caveat is, once you DO begin to help someone, you DO have a duty to continue that help. You cannot start helping someone and then stop halfway, Similarly, you cannot tell people you are going to help someone and then not follow through. These laws fall under what is called "detrimental reliance." If you begin helping someone or tell people you are going to, others will not come to their aid as they believe you will do so. They detrimentally rely on your word or actions that you will provide aid. Therefore, the person needing the aid will not get it because others believed you were going to provide it.
 
Here is the current state of the law, generally speaking, as some jurisdictions may vary:

You have no duty to come to the aid of another, whether it be to stop someone for drowning or choking, using your ccw to stop a crime, etc.

The caveat is, once you DO begin to help someone, you DO have a duty to continue that help. You cannot start helping someone and then stop halfway, Similarly, you cannot tell people you are going to help someone and then not follow through. These laws fall under what is called "detrimental reliance." If you begin helping someone or tell people you are going to, others will not come to their aid as they believe you will do so. They detrimentally rely on your word or actions that you will provide aid. Therefore, the person needing the aid will not get it because others believed you were going to provide it.

Where are you getting this from? Sounds strictly civil...

If I can't be compelled to do a damn thing, why would stopping be an issue?

I can see the whole certified medical issue (emt,para,etc duty to render aide), but if an untrained/un-sworn joe decides to start sally struthers cpr and then gives up, he's in "trouble"? I don't think so....at least not in my area.
 
I've been lurking here for a bit and thought this would make an interesting first post. To the OP, I believe what you're describing is called a "duty to rescue," and it doesn't exist in Texas, your mileage may vary where you live but, I believe it's more common in European countries.

Regarding medical personnel, in my state certified medical personnel are under no obligation to render medical aid to others beyond contacting 911. Should they choose to intervene, they are held to a higher standard of care than a lay person. For example, if I decided to intervene at the site of a rural motorcycle accident with PD already controlling traffic but no ambulance on scene, I would be held to the same standard of care as I would be if I were working on a box. I would be expected to appropriately protect the patient's cervical spine from further injury as an example. Also, I would be required to continue caring for my patient until able to hand off care to someone with an equal or greater level of training. For example, as a paramedic I could hand off this patient to another medic, an RN, a Dr. or the like. If I ceased caring for the patient prior to handing this patient off to appropriately trained personnel or the patient making a competent/informed refusal of further care I would be guilty of abandonment. This would likely result in a combination of civil and criminal penalties culminating with me having my patch pulled.

Interestingly, as a paramedic my authority to practice medicine is derived from my medical director (a physician), delegating me the right to practice under his license according to protocols/standing orders that he has approved. My protocols do not allow me to practice under his license outside of work so, if I were to perform any Advanced Life Support skills (i.e. intubation, medication administration, starting an IV, needle thoracostomy etc.) outside of basic first aid (CPR, AED, c-spine precautions, or hemorrhage control) I would be guilty of practicing medicine without a license. This would result in the possibility of criminal and civil penalties as described earlier.

So, using the above example of a rural motorcycle accident with PD on scene controlling traffic and a Volunteer Fire Department on scene with ALS equipment but no medics, an assortment of EMT-Basics and ECA's for example. Were I to discover signs and symptoms consistent with a tension pneumothorax (a life threatening condition resulting from a build up of air in the pleural space and a collapsed lung), I would technically be committing a crime were I to perform a needle thoracostomy and potentially save their life. However, I would be willing to bet that a prosecutor would have pretty serious difficulty finding 12 people to convict me of a crime for saving someone's life. I have no doubt, that the state licensing board would have no such qualms about censuring me in some manner up to and including possibly pulling or suspending my credentials. To make it even more interesting, lets say that the hypothetical patient has an anatomical abnormality and although I correctly perform the procedure, I strike a major blood vessel. Although, I correct the tension pneumothorax perhaps he develops a hemothorax and dies as a result of blood building up in the pleural cavity prior to reaching definitive care. How difficult would it be for an ambulance chaser and a grieving family to potentially ruin my life and end my career?

So, to return to the OP's question, I don't believe there is a legal requirement for a legally armed person to render aid to anyone else and there are significant legal and personal safety risks to doing so. Whether you have a moral obligation to do so is another matter entirely and depends on what your values are I suppose.
 
Quoheleth
I will not place myself in danger unless it's for my family or a child.
Who pays my medical costs if I'm injured? Who takes care of my family with a death pension as the LEO's do?
I'm obligated to no person except my family. I'm obligated to protect the Constitution due to never having been released from my oath of enlistment.
 
In general, no a person is not obligated to help or render aid to a stranger in trouble. The caveat to that is if the observer gets involved, then the observer cannot abandone aiding the individual. Also, the other caveat is that the observer is required to give aid if it's a situation that that observer created. Then s/he is required to render aid.

Example:
In Tennessee there is a flood and the water is 20' deep and all the houses and buisnesses are under water and people are literally drowning.

Situation 1: I have a fishing boat, life vests, and rope and am driving it around the city. There are others doing the same thing. I see a person drowning, crying for help.

I can literally sit there and watch the person drown and have no LEGAL obligation to render aid. Now, many will say that I have a moral duty and I would agree with that. But there's no LEGAL requirement.

Situation 2: Same as above - now I do something to begin rendering help. I yell to the person "I will help you." Or I throw a line and life vest to the person. Now I am legally bound to act reasonably to complete the rescue. If, midway through the rescue, I abandon my attempt (say I recognize the person as my mortal enemy) and decide not to rescue the person, you would be breaking the law and if they died you could be tried for manslaughter for contributing to their death.

Situation 3: Same as 1 above but YOU created their emergency. Imagine that you had the person in your boat but through your reckless driving and lack of lifevests, they were tossed from the boat and are drowning. You are legally obligated to rescue them.

That's all 'bar exam' common law from waaayyyy back. Hope it helps.

Again, your state law will likely vary abit, but these are the basic concepts.
 
Obviously, if there's misfeasance/malfeasance you can sue. If LE was 10 seconds too late and did everything properly; that's part of the world we live in.

I don't know if you have read the case law that shows there is no duty to protect, but it is a bit more than 10 seconds, and is up to and including never responding.

In the Warren case two roomates upstairs heard their third roomate downstairs being attacked by intruders. They called the police.
This was in DC where gun laws at the time were very strict (no handguns could be purchased), and the law required all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

It continued for awhile, and they called the police again, who once again answered and dispatch alerted local police.
The third woman downstairs finally stopped screaming after about 30 minutes.
The two women assumed the police they had called twice had finally arrived and stopped the attackers.
They called down to their roommate which alerted the intruders.
The intruders, two men, then took all three of the women and proceeded to beat and repeatedly rape them for over 14 hours.

Police were found by the Supreme Court to not be liable in any way whatsoever.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

You can call 24 times over 24 hours and they can never respond and still not be liable.


The only people the government and its agents are held liable to protect are those in their custody. Prisoners, arrested or restrained individuals, or others who are in the care of the government against their will.






That said I have heard of states with a law requiring someone to report a crime or assist.
I know California has such a law passed in 1999 if you witness a crime on a child under 14 years old (read about it in a gang rape case last year of a 15 year old where 4-5 individuals raped her and around 10 witnesses failed to report the incident and were not liable of any legal wrongdoing.)
So technically you could be breaking the law in California if you witness a parent give a harsh spanking/beating to a child and do not report it to police.



As noted by someone else, police must be assisted in some jurisidictins or instances.
They can also give a command to help them perform an arrest or detention, with penalties for failure to do so in some locations.
They can even take personal property of others to assist them against the will of the property owner on occasion.
They can in fact commandeer vehicles, like common in some movies during police chases.
(Though the individual would be entitled to reimbursement for damages. But blue book values are often less than the real value of the vehicle, or something similar you could replace it with. If a vehicle in excellent shape with excellent maintenance, with the engine just completely redone was totaled, they may only be entitled to give you the used blue book value of an X year old car.)
 
Example:
In Tennessee there is a flood and the water is 20' deep and all the houses and buisnesses are under water and people are literally drowning.

Situation 1: I have a fishing boat, life vests, and rope and am driving it around the city. There are others doing the same thing. I see a person drowning, crying for help.

I can literally sit there and watch the person drown and have no LEGAL obligation to render aid.

Slightly different situation, but FWIW this is from 46 USC:

§ 2304. Duty to provide assistance at sea

(a)
(1) A master or individual in charge of a vessel shall render assistance to any individual found at sea in danger of being lost, so far as the master or individual in charge can do so without serious danger to the master’s or individual’s vessel or individuals on board.


[There are also "Good Samaritan" laws/regs/whatever to protect people who try to help in a reasonable and prudent manner.]
 
Last edited:
There is no legal requirement or obligation to come to the aid of another. In fact, while not actively discouraged, it is strongly recommended that you do so with great care and caution as the situation might not be what it appears.
And THAT, my friends, is the fly in the oatmeal. If you witnessed the situation from the very beginning, or if some big guy is kick'n the live'n snot out of a smaller person then intervention may be relatively risk free. Otherwise just being a good witness may be the smart thing to do.
 
beatcop,


Where are you getting this from? Sounds strictly civil...

If I can't be compelled to do a damn thing, why would stopping be an issue?

I can see the whole certified medical issue (emt,para,etc duty to render aide), but if an untrained/un-sworn joe decides to start sally struthers cpr and then gives up, he's in "trouble"? I don't think so....at least not in my area.

It is called detrimental reliance and it is absolutely the prevailing law in the country. I cannot speak for every single jurisdiction, but it is the prevailing law. I did my best to explain it, but basically the logic goes, if you stop helping someone midway, they may me worse off because someone else who may have helped them the whole way did not do so because it appeared you were already helping them. The law is explained in the Second Restatement of Torts. The restatement is a treatise that summarizes the prevailing case law on a specific topic, here... torts. If you wish for the case law citations that form the basis of the Restatement on this situation we are discussing I can find them for you.

leadcounsel gave actual examples which should help you understand the state of the law.

And yes this is civil, it is tort law. This thread appeared to be concerned mostly with civil liability so I'm not off topic as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top