• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Do firefighters and EMS have any obligation to respond?

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
It's well noted and documented that the Supreme Court had made it very clear that the police do not have any obligation to respond to calls, nor do they have any obligation to protect the lives of others in their presence. With that said, do firefighters and EMS fall under the same circumstances? If a house if burning down, do firefighters have no obligations to respond if a call is made? Do EMS have no obligation to respond to a call of someone having a heart attack?
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
If they are private services, any obligation is contained in their contract.

If they are government services, even if they are private contractors working for the government, they have no obligation to respond.
 

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
Depends. I am both. As a Vol FF I dont have to hit all the calls and I dont. Sometimes i'm at work, sick, etc. I wont go an a medical call if it so far from the house. If its a working fire then yea i'll go. Who wouldn't!
As a 911 EMS service we have to go. Sometimes its for BS but we go. We have never denied a run. We may have put off a transfer for a hour to take 911 calls but then we go do it.
Also we are not covered by the Good Samaritan laws.

There is a differance between the paid and Vol units. Each area of the US is different.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What your are speaking of sounds like a personal obligation to the folks who took you on as a firefighter or an EMS.

I think the titular question is about the legal duty to respond, a duty to the victims. In other words, can someone claim he suffered a loss because firefighters or EMS did not respond or were not timely in their response?

As there is already precedent stating that police cannot be held liable for not being responsive enough, I'd say that the same holds for firefighters and EMS.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
What your are speaking of sounds like a personal obligation to the folks who took you on as a firefighter or an EMS.

I think the titular question is about the legal duty to respond, a duty to the victims. In other words, can someone claim he suffered a loss because firefighters or EMS did not respond or were not timely in their response?

As there is already precedent stating that police cannot be held liable for not being responsive enough, I'd say that the same holds for firefighters and EMS.

I should have clarified better, but yes, that was my question. Can a victim make a legal claim for a loss if an emergency provider failed to show up, or show up in a timely manner? I know it has been ruled that the police have no *legal* duty to respond and/or protect, so I was curious if it were the same for the entire field of emergency responders.
 

hogeaterf6

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
381
Location
, ,
Timely manor is the key word. Whose timely manor? If its you having a emergency then no one can get here fast enough. The national ave is 7 min from the time of call till we get there. We are staged enough that we are below ave, unless we have to get into the lower corner of the county then it take 15 min. That is the reason for vol FD. They are spread out and can render care till we get there. Alot of the big cities priorites calls. Some times you are moved to the bottom of the run list. Who knows how long that will take. I was in the middle of SD a few yrs ago and the lady said we have a nice vol ambulance 35 miles away. That is far. Vol is what it is. Volunteer. You can only drive so fast. You get in a wreck and kill someone, your toast. Folks call 911 all the time. We dont run light ans siren all the time. Folks call for the stupid reasons. Some just need a ride or a sandwich made.

I'm sure you can sue for anything.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Once again, there is already precedent for emergency responders not responding in a "timely manner" not be held responsible in a court of law.

You can sue for anything, but only win for what the law allows, and precedent won't allow for winning a suit based on not responding in a timely manner.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Morally and Ethically, a resounding "YES"!

Legally, they probably fit the same profile as SCOTUS ruled about police officers, which is NO!.

:cuss:
 

1000ydshooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
173
Location
Formerly Kwajalein atoll, and Iraq. Now Zuni Va
In my 20 yrs of service as a fire fighter paramedic, i have seen all sides of the job,vol,city,Dod and contractor. As a vol i am not required to respond,as a city (professional) i was required to respond by law.As DOD i was also required, as a contractor i was also required.The only guys that have a choice are the Vols.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape about the term professional, I hate that term. to me it has more to do with how you conduct yourself and the image you present. to me guys that earn a pay check are career not professional.Some of the guys in my Vol dept have a more professional attitude and conduct themselves as such than alot of the guys i have worked with in the other "professional" depts. Ok off my soap box now.
 

LordFuzzywig

New member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
7
Location
Wichita, KS
In short, when becoming an EMT (which both FFs are, and Paramedics are trained beyond), you accept your "Duty to Act". What this means is that while acting within your "Scope of Duty", you MUST act. OUTSIDE your scope of duty (on personal business), you are NOT required to act/respond.

In layman's terms:
When I'm on duty, I have to go to a call. If I see someone get hit by a car on the way, I have a duty to act to those new patients.

When I'm off duty, if I see a MVC, I can drive on by LEGALLY. Morally, I probably would not, but I am well within my legal rights to pass on by.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
In short, when becoming an EMT (which both FFs are, and Paramedics are trained beyond), you accept your "Duty to Act". What this means is that while acting within your "Scope of Duty", you MUST act. OUTSIDE your scope of duty (on personal business), you are NOT required to act/respond.

Depends upon the state. In some states it's illegal for any citizen (EMT, paramedic, or leaf-raker) to simply do nothing when another is in need. The requirements vary from state to state, but in general it can be summed up that people are required to render what assistance they can to the extent they are either trained or able.

Even if this is not a requirement of your state, that are considerations beyond those which are merely legal. Moral and ethical considerations enter into the picture as well, and judges have often made rulings based on moral and ethical obligations to others and society as a whole.

It's well noted and documented that the Supreme Court had made it very clear that the police do not have any obligation to respond to calls, nor do they have any obligation to protect the lives of others in their presence?

I dispute this blanket statement. Do you have any citations/references to back up your claim.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
What I am trained and qualified to do:

Use my firearm to defend myself and others from grave threats.
Call 911.
Stand by.
 

streetdoc

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
341
Location
Unionville, Virginia, USA
As somebody else already stated, it varies by state. In Virginia, I am covered by Good Sam Laws both as a Volunteer and a Professional Provider. As an employee of local government as a FF/Paramedic, when I am on duty, I have a obligation to respond but I have no obligation to risk my life or the lives of my crew. With that being said, our equipment and gear allow us to go much further into hazardous situations without risking ourselves. Every EMT, Paramedic and FF training manual will talk about acceptable and expected risk. We will risk a lot to save a life but should only risk a little to save property. We shouldn't enter certain violent scenes until they have been secured by law enforcement, closeness of LE, the type of scene and ease of access to the victim will play a huge roll in the decision making process. For fire calls, the type of building, how long it has been burning, the location of the fire and the probability of viable victims will all be part of that decision making process. There will never be a cut and dry answer.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124
It's well noted and documented that the Supreme Court had made it very clear that the police do not have any obligation to respond to calls, nor do they have any obligation to protect the lives of others in their presence?

I dispute this blanket statement. Do you have any citations/references to back up your claim.

If I remember correctly those words were part of a majority opinion of SCOTUS over 30 years ago when a family sued the DC police for not responding in a timely manner when a woman was killed in her home AFTER calling the police. A good law search should find it. Oops, not SCOTUS. I seem to have mixed together more than one case.

I found this:

Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police.

The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched.
The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours. When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

No Cite, but it seems to be the federal district court of D.C. made this particular ruling.
 
Last edited:

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Depends upon the state. In some states it's illegal for any citizen (EMT, paramedic, or leaf-raker) to simply do nothing when another is in need. The requirements vary from state to state, but in general it can be summed up that people are required to render what assistance they can to the extent they are either trained or able.

Is there a list or link to these states that have this requirement. I know this was discussed here a while ago, and nobody could provide any evidence that such a law existed.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Depends upon the state. In some states it's illegal for any citizen (EMT, paramedic, or leaf-raker) to simply do nothing when another is in need. The requirements vary from state to state, but in general it can be summed up that people are required to render what assistance they can to the extent they are either trained or able.
I'm interested in which states require this. Do you have a link or reference?

Some states have "good samaritan laws", which do not require anyone to give aid, but give civil immunity to someone who tries to help in good faith and causes further damage. That immunity is pierced if someone acts in violation of any training they've had.

For example: a witness to a car crash, having no formal training, pulls a victim from the wreck (thinking it's the best thing to do, because Hollywood taught him that "It's gonna blow!"). By doing so, he worsens a spinal injury and the victim is paralyzed for life. Under "Good Samaritan" laws, the victim can't successfully sue the person who "helped", and caused or worsened the damage.

On the other hand, same circumstances, but the Samaritan has had advanced first aid training, he could be sued, because he had training telling him "don't do that!", but did it anyway.


Do you have any citations/references to back up your claim.
since9: Yes, exactly.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm interested in which states require this. Do you have a link or reference?

Sure! Links below.

Some states have "good samaritan laws", which do not require anyone to give aid, but give civil immunity to someone who tries to help in good faith and causes further damage. That immunity is pierced if someone acts in violation of any training they've had.

Actually, all states have good samaritan laws, but they vary widely by state. In some states they're very good, but in others, they're fairly bad.

Duty to rescue laws, however, do. There's no specific "duty to rescue" laws on the books here in the U.S., as our law based on English common law, which also contains no such requirement. There are portions of good samaritan laws, however, which contain duty to rescue clauses, most notable in FL, MA, MN, OH, RI, VT, WA, and WI.

In civil law countries, such as Germany, duty to rescue is usually spelled out on the books.

For example: a witness to a car crash, having no formal training, pulls a victim from the wreck (thinking it's the best thing to do, because Hollywood taught him that "It's gonna blow!"). By doing so, he worsens a spinal injury and the victim is paralyzed for life. Under "Good Samaritan" laws, the victim can't successfully sue the person who "helped", and caused or worsened the damage.

Interesting you should pick that scenario, as that's precisely what happened, yet the California Supreme Court ruled that the accident victim could indeed sue her rescuer. Read more about this case, here.
 
Last edited:

MedicineMan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Marion, Mississippi, USA
Fire and EMS are obligated.
You call, we respond.

If we don't, we CAN be sued.
UNLIKE LEO.

I too am a Vol. firefighter, and work for "private" EMS that is contracted as the county services.

As VFF, I tooskip some calls and am unavailable.
But we do what we can cause we LOVE IT, not for a "check".
So if you need us, we are reliable.

Not responding as EMS is a BAD thing.
Not something you really wanna do.
Lots of ugly legal ramifications, that include loss of license from state.
 
Top