A recent incident in New York City once again raises the question of duty to act. Does an off-duty EMT have a duty to render aid to a citizen in distress? While it will take years for the legal issues to play themselves out, the tragedy is being played out in the press damaging the reputation of FDNY and EMS workers in the process.
On December 9, 2009, at about 9:00 am two EMTs walked into an Au Bon Pain coffee shop. While there, an employee began experiencing shortness of breath and abdominal pains. The woman, who was pregnant at the time, was reported to have been unconscious and turning blue. Other employees, seeing the two FDNY employees, asked them to help. According to witnesses, the pair declined, suggesting merely that 911 be called. 911 was called, a crew arrived, but the woman and her unborn baby died.
And now the questions start…….
Well you would think they would start. However, after watching much of news footage and reading the various news reports from New York, there seems to be very few questions being asked. Rather, there was a steady stream of condemnation from family members, politicians, and media pundits directed at the two EMTs. But no one seems to be asking some of the real hard questions that need to be addressed. Did the off duty EMTs have a legal duty to act? If so, was it satisfied by providing the recommendation to call 911? If not, what should the EMTs have done without proper PPE or medical equipment? How much would have been enough? Would simply kneeling by the patient’s side have been enough? Taking the woman’s pulse and respirations?
As if those questions are not enough comes another twist: the two EMTs were actually dispatchers, not field EMTs. They had little to no field experience. Should that factor into the equation?
One point I feel compelled to make: we need to separate the legal issues from the moral issues. If the allegations in the press are true…. which mind you they often are not…. but if they are true, the conduct of the EMTs was morally unconscionable and reprehensible. That is a moral consideration only.
But legally, where is the line to be drawn on their (and our) duty to act? As firefighters, EMTs, paramedics – when do we have – and when do we not have – a legal duty to act? Let me throw one more log on this unsettling fire. What if the two EMTs had been drinking prior to entering the coffee shop. Does having an alcoholic beverage immediately after work extinguish a duty to act? Would it matter if they had one beer or ten beers? Now before someone goes off half-cocked – let me set the record straight: I am asking a purely hypothetical question. I am not suggesting alcohol was involved in the NYC case. I am simply trying to make a point…. because each of us needs to understand the factors that may influence the duty we may owe.
If alcohol usage would excuse someone from a duty to act, how about exhaustion from having been up for over 24 hours? What about the use of prescription drugs that have precautions such as “do not drive or operate machinery”, "may impair judgment or motor skills"? And what about recreational/illegal drugs? Would these other factors have a bearing on one’s legal duty to act?
These are not easy questions and there are no pat answers. The New York case will be an interesting one to follow as the facts and issues unfold.