Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Wrongful Lawsuit 34

Journal by pudge

Long story short: boy's mother dying, he calls 911. The operator thinks he is playing, and lectures him, and doesn't send help. Boy's mother dies.

Ambulance-chaser Geoffrey Fieger files two lawsuits, one for wrongful death of the mother, one for causing pain and suffering of the boy.

Both are essentially baseless. Emergency services have no obligation to help you. The end. Period. It's a terrible situation, but not an actionable one.

But to claim wrongful death? Fieger's outdone himself. Claiming that lacking to believe a boy asking for help is actually killing someone.

Of course, the real point here is that Fieger is running for Attorney General of Michigan this year, and most people probably don't understand the fact that his wrongful death lawsuit has absolutely no legal basis.

It's very scary to me that Michigan could have an Attorney General who doesn't care about the law. Oh well, I don't live there.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wrongful Lawsuit More

Wrongful Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • You sure? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nandorman ( 742258 )
    Emergency services have no obligation to help you. The end. Period. It's a terrible situation, but not an actionable one.


    You sure that's true in Michigan (or anywhere, for that matter)? If the fire department says "sorry, we don't like you, so we're not coming to your house," then you have no legal recourse? After all, it's usually paid for with public (your) money.
    • You sure that's true in Michigan (or anywhere, for that matter)? If the fire department says "sorry, we don't like you, so we're not coming to your house," then you have no legal recourse?

      I don't know about Michigan for certain, but everywhere else I've been, and everything I've seen: yes.

      After all, it's usually paid for with public (your) money.

      Doesn't matter. They have no obligation to help.

      Note that this is one of the good current arguments in favor of keeping a proper interpretation of the Second Amend
    • I have to agree. I believe in Maryland and in every place in the United States, its required for Emergency Services to report to your home in the case of an emergency, regardless if they think the call is a prank or not. This case does seem to have some sort of negligence on the part of the operator that did lead to the death of the mother. This is the same as the action of Zacarias Musawi where even though he took no actions during the 9/11 attacks, he could have reported it, stopping the deaths of thou
      • I'm not very well versed in the case, but I thought the issue was that he lied to the investigators? If he intentionally mislead them, he's taking an action to assist in the events, much different from just biting his tongue.

        In this case, I'm tempted to say that the operator should be held liable. She had no reason to believe that this was a prank call, but simply chose to dismiss it. 911 operators do make life or death decisions similar to those of doctors, and perhaps they should also be responsible, with
        • In this case, I'm tempted to say that the operator should be held liable. She had no reason to believe that this was a prank call, but simply chose to dismiss it.

          That's obviously not true. She clearly had reason to believe it was a prank, else she would not have believed it was a prank. She "chose to dismiss it" because she thought it was prank.
          • Wow, even you have to admit that's a terrible argument.

            No seriously, pretend someone else wrote it and read it again.

            I mean, just wow.
            • No, it's not. It's a self-evidently true argument. She believed it was a prank, and therefore she had a reason to believe it was a prank. People don't just spontaneously believe things.

              Maybe she had no GOOD reason to believe it was a prank, but she certainly had a reason.
              • No, it's not. It's a self-evidently true argument.

                That doesn't make it a GOOD argument.
                • That doesn't make it a GOOD argument.

                  In my book, a true argument is as good an argument as one could hope for. :-)
                  • "The sky is blue, therefore its BLUE!"

                    It's a true argument, but I wouldn't say it's a GOOD argument as nothing is actually gained from the discourse.
                    • But as it was used to refute a claim to the contrary, I call it pretty good. :-)
                    • True -- but an argument that is self-evidently true does not necessarily make it a GOOD argument.

                      Regardless, there may be a valid "negligence" claim if the 911 operator deviated even a small amount from their standard protocol. I think it's too early to tell.
      • I have to agree. I believe in Maryland and in every place in the United States, its required for Emergency Services to report to your home in the case of an emergency, regardless if they think the call is a prank or not.

        Well, you believe incorrectly!

        This case does seem to have some sort of negligence on the part of the operator that did lead to the death of the mother.

        Absolutely false. The death was caused by a completely unrelated problem. The negligence did not lead to the mother's death, it lead to the
    • The police have no obligation [nytimes.com] [Link to NY Times. l/p bethaniejournal/happystick] to help you. The most recent SCOTUS cite is Castle Rock v. Gonzales [cornell.edu], and is only the most recent in a series of such decisions. (This one was a little different in that the lawyers tried to cast it as a property rights case to get around said precident).

      In 1989, SCOTUS held the samefor social workers [findlaw.com]. This case was used in deciding Gonzalez.

      It has been held that the government and it's organs have only a general duty to protect
      • Bad form, replying to myself.

        However, this link [firearmsandliberty.com] is pretty informative. It's a pro-second amendment site, but I don't think that effects the quality of the analysis of the legal issues.

        • It's a pro-second amendment site, but I don't think that effects the quality of the analysis of the legal issues.

          I should hope that wouldn't affect it any more than being a pro-first amendment site, or a pro-tenth amendment site. Is the second amendment the black sheep of the Bill of Rights or something?

      • False protection is worse than none

        Absoloutely. What disturbs me with several of the cases referenced was that the 911 operator would tell the called that help was on the way! If they had simply said "Fuck off and die" instead, perhaps the people would have taken an alternative action rather than relying on help that never came.
      • I agree with all you posted, except I am on the fence about the restraining order issue. I tend to lean toward the court decision, but as per what you said, I am not entirely convinced.

        The reason I lean toward the court's position is that I do not think the restraining order implies protection (and therefore calling it "false protection" seems to me to be begging the question). If the person is that much of a danger, then why was he allowed out on bail, or why was he not civilly committed, etc.? Plus, y
        • My problem with that is that the restraining orders generally include phrases to the effect that 'the police will take all measures necessary to enforce this order.' To me, it seems reasonable to jump to the conclusion that the police will do so, and are, in fact, so obligated. (They aren't, but I can see where a reasonable person, let alone a scared person, would think otherwise)

          As far as "why aren't they in jail?", which is a valid question, btw. The answer is that they are often issued as a pro forma and
          • Now, mind you, I agree with the court's opinions in this matter EXCEPT for the first point above.

            I see. I'd argue that the restraining orders should not include that or similar language, then.

            Note that I am not necessarily, however, against a state or local government passing a law that DOES require the local police or whatever to provide protection in some circumstances. That's a state/local issue.

            I don't think we have any disagreement, other than I think that the way restraining orders are "sold" gives

      • Don't be in a rush to apply that precendent everywhere. Castle Rock is predicated on Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, which says that people only have an entitlement if the law clearly and unambiguously grants them one. The police generally have wide discretion on how to deal with violations of orders of protection, and so such enforcement is not an entitlement under Castle Rock.

        If - and I don't know whether this is true in this case - the actions of 911 dispatchers and other emergency respo

        • In particular, a tort of negligence may apply.

          I hope not. But wrongful death certainly does not.

          • In particular, a tort of negligence may apply.

            I hope not. But wrongful death certainly does not.

            Pudge, you are making it pretty obvious that you don't have any idea how the legal system actually works or what these terms actually mean. Wrongful death is a tort of negligence. It arises when someone negligently violates their duty of care, and causes someone else to die.

            Unless the defense can demonstrate that their were no available units to respond, and that the dispatcher was triaging calls, the

            • Pudge, you are making it pretty obvious that you don't have any idea how the legal system actually works or what these terms actually mean.

              No. But YOU are showing you don't know the definition of the word "cause."

              Wrongful death is a tort of negligence. It arises when someone negligently violates their duty of care, and causes someone else to die.

              Exactly. And as the 911 operator did not cause anyone to die, it is not wrongful death.
        • I recommend you read the cases in question. I linked to them. Not meaning (particularly) to sound snotty, but this is a well established area of law.

          If you read Castle rock, you will see that the police had a "manditory arrest" requirement under the law. I agree that the police have to have discretion and need it. However, the Colorado law was "clear and unambiguous" if read in plain english. Further, if there are limited numbers of police, and thus the need for discretion, explain how the same would not h
          • Yep, RW, I am with you. They may have violated state or local law, but NOT the 14th Amendment. Except:

            OF COURSE this case will procede under state law. And if the plaintiff should, by some alignment of the stars, win... It WILL be appealed to the federal courts. That's HOW our system works.

            That's only how our system works if the Constitution or other federal law is involved. If the plaintiff/prosecution is not asserting a violation of the 14th Amendment, and the state law is not directly related to the 1
            • I am trying to figure out a way to craft such a law WITHOUT relying on 14th Amendment concepts, and failing.

              And that, of course, is the key. Any state law that granted such an obligation would, as a matter of definition, create such as a matter of law. When such an obligation was not met, I don't see how one can bring suit, other than to argue that they were not accorded thier rights (or that the state failed to meet its obligations) under the law, I.e. due process of law.

              To tell the truth, about the only

          • I did a quick look around and wasn't able to find anything that spoke directly to Michigan. As a point of comparison, however, in California 911 operators can be held vicariously liable for gross negligence. See Ma v. City and County of San Francisco [typepad.com].

            Like I said before, there is no duty to act ahead of the emergency, but once the emergency occurs the emergency responders have a duty to act with a reasonable standard of care.

            • See Ma v. City and County of San Francisco.

              Sigh. Did you read the case you cite? I've got a better idea, how about we look at the case you cite, Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority. The one where the CA Supreme Court overruled the precident set by the lower court in Ma.

              Just Like the Navarro [findlaw.com] case I linked to (which was also a California case, also dealing with 911 response. btw), The Ma case held that
              "We conclude that, based on applicable statutory provisions and the legislative policies underlyin

              • You're right. I'm going to focus on "vicarious liability is limited to cases involving gross negligence or bad faith."

                If there is zero duty how can there be any liability? The fact that there are some instances where liability can arise is proof positive that there is some duty.

                A case such as the one in question where a 911 dispatcher dismisses out-of-hand a 911 call made by a young child may very likely fit the standard of gross negligence or bad faith, and so would support a wrongful death tort (pro

                • If there is zero duty how can there be any liability?

                  Again, I hate to sound overly snotty, but... Please READ some of the decisions (especially when YOU bring them into the discussion ;->). The vicarious liability (which was explicitly NOT found in this case) comes into play IF the state, or it's agent(s) chose to act.

                  To requote (from my prior post) the Eastburn decision:
                  "As Zepeda states, "the statute does not impose a general duty upon emergency personnel to provide assistance whenever and wherever sum
                  • Eh. Preview then post.

                    Absent a "special relationship" there is DO duty on the part of the state (or its agents) to protect any given individual.

                    s/b

                    Absent a "special relationship" there is NO duty on the part of the state (or its agents) to protect any given individual.

                    Tell you what, you show me any finally decided case (whose precident hasn't been overturned as Mu was) that unlike Castle Rock, Deshaney, Warren, Navarro, Eastburn, or any of the others cited in this thread, ruled that the state has a duty to

                    • How about Blatz v. Allina Health System [findlaw.com] where an ambulance company responding to a 911 dispatch was found liable for the plaintiff's brain damage because they were negligent in locating the house?

                    • where an ambulance company responding to a 911 dispatch was found liable...

                      Really, the above empasis should answer the question. However,...

                      1. The request was to show where a court case had held that the state has a duty to protect any individual absent a "special relationship".

                      2. This case refers to liability on the part of a private company, NOT the 911 dispatch or the state. It did not in any way hold the state of Minn liable for anything.

                      3. They (the company, see #2) had already ACTED to give aid. The c

Slashdot Top Deals

Variables don't; constants aren't.

Close