A Common Law Duty to Have an AED Available?

Posted by: Curt Varone September 12, 2013 0

Here is a posting from fellow blogger Greg Slusser that he kindly agreed to share with Fire Law Blog. It is not a fire service case per se but the issues are certainly of concern to firefighters as the common law involving duty to render aid continues to evolve. Thanks also to Andrew E. for finding the story!!!!

Verdugo v. Target: Does A Retailer Have A Common Law Duty to Have an AED Available?

California Supreme Court to rule whether the duty to provide ‘emergency first aid’ requires having external defibrillators

September 11, 2013

By Greg Slusser, greg@defibtech.com

[To view the article please proceed to Greg's web site]

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 40 years of fire service experience and 30 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
© Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved. | FireLawBlog.com & Curt Varone | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
x

Check Also

San Francisco Firefighters Fired Over COVID19 Vaccine Mandate File Suit

Twenty-one San Francisco firefighters who were fired for failing to comply with the city’s COVID19 vaccine mandate have filed suit alleging religious discrimination, failure to accommodate religious beliefs under California law, due process violations, and violations of their autonomous privacy rights. The suit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court.

Court Rejects Claims of Disability Discrimination by Indianapolis Firefighter

An Indianapolis firefighter who was terminated in 2020 for being absent without leave, has lost his federal court lawsuit. Sanjiv Neal claimed the department violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plus committed wrongful termination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.