On November 24, 2024, the court in Murphy v. City of Petaluma addressed a medical negligence claim against the City of Petaluma and its fire department paramedics. Following a head-on car collision, plaintiff Murphy sued, alleging that paramedics’ failure to assess her condition led to a stroke hours later, resulting in permanent brain damage, speech and language impairment, and paralysis. Despite her repeated refusals of treatment or transport, Murphy argued that the paramedics assumed a duty of care by interacting with her at the scene. The court disagreed, holding that merely offering medical care does not impose a duty to perform a comprehensive medical assessment. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. The Court discussed exceptions to this general rule that emergency personnel, such as paramedics, do not have a duty to perform a full medical assessment or provide medical care when an individual refuses treatment. This rule is grounded in the absence of a voluntary assumption of duty, lack of reliance by the individual, and no increase in the risk of harm caused by the responders' actions. These exceptions highlight that a duty is not automatic but depends on specific actions or reliance.
Murphy cited several cases to argue that the paramedics “triggered a duty of care to render medical assistance.” The court analyzed and distinguished each: In Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, a paramedic conducted a cursory “60-second examination” on a fight victim, checking only for life-threatening injuries. The paramedic neither assessed the decedent’s mental capacity nor recommended hospital transport, advising only that the decedent “probably should see a doctor” before leaving. The decedent soon died from sickle cell anemia complications. Expert testimony indicated that checking pulse or blood pressure could have revealed shock, potentially averting the crisis. Unlike Murphy, the Wright paramedic’s inadequate assessment fell below the standard of care, but the court noted that the duty of care was presumed, not litigated, in Wright.
In Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 232, paramedics delayed aid to a gunshot victim until police arrived, resulting in the victim’s death. The trial court found no duty to provide immediate care or even inquire about the victim’s status. The paramedics did not create the peril, assume a special duty, induce reliance, or increase the risk of harm. Thus, emergency personnel are not obligated to assist “whenever and wherever summoned,” reinforcing the absence of a general duty.
In Camp v. State of California (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 967, highway patrol officers, including a certified Emergency Medical Responder, responded to an accident. They found Camp lying near a car and asked if she was injured or needed an ambulance. Camp declined both. A friend later carried her to a car, and within hours, she was hospitalized with severe spinal cord injuries. The Court of Appeal held that the officer owed no duty, as no voluntary assumption of care occurred, and the officer’s actions did not increase the risk of harm. Liability requires either a voluntary duty or increased risk, neither of which applied.
Conclusion:
The Murphy ruling clarifies that paramedics do not assume a duty to examine a patient who repeatedly refuses medical aid. The paramedics made no promises, ignored no requests, and left Murphy in the same position as before their arrival. However, this case underscores the importance of assessing and documenting a person’s cognitive capacity to refuse treatment. Had Murphy’s refusals been deemed uninformed or impaired, the outcome might have differed. Emergency responders should prioritize clear documentation to protect against liability while respecting patient autonomy.
