Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Aug 3, 1990 No. B045924Published

Before: Compton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that city paramedics have no general legal duty to render aid to members of the public, and that Health and Safety Code section 1799.107 does not impose a mandatory duty to provide assistance.

Issues

Whether city paramedics owe a general duty of care to render aid to members of the public.
Whether Health and Safety Code section 1799.107 imposes a mandatory duty on emergency personnel to provide assistance when summoned.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As a general rule, one has no duty to come to the aid of another.”

“The City's paramedics had no general duty to render aid to plaintiffs' decedent.”

“The clear import of this language is to limit, not expand, a public entity's liability exposure for providing emergency services to the public.”

223 Cal.App.3d 232 (1990) 272 Cal. Rptr. 635 MANUEL ZEPEDA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

Docket No. B045924. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

August 3, 1990. [234] COUNSEL

Thomas Edward Wall for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

James K. Hahn, City Attorney, John T. Neville and Richard M. Helgeson, Assistant City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

COMPTON, Acting P.J.

Plaintiffs Manuel and Rosa Zepeda appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to their complaint. We affirm.

The record reveals that plaintiffs commenced an action against defendants City of Los Angeles (City) and Robert Rosito[1] for the wrongful death of their son Jerman. According to the allegations of the complaint, Rosito shot Jerman in the neck on February 28, 1988. Even though they were in no apparent danger, a paramedic team employed by the City purportedly refused to render medical attention or otherwise assist Jerman until the police arrived at the scene. The complaint further averred that Jerman eventually died because the paramedics breached "a duty to come to the aid of the decedent or at least make inquiry as to the status of the decedent."

The City subsequently filed a demurrer which the trial court sustained with leave to amend. When plaintiffs elected to stand on their complaint, the court again sustained the demurrer and then dismissed the action.

(1a) Even assuming, as we must, that all of the material facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint are true (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal. App.3d 1071, 1076-1077 [195 Cal. Rptr. 576]), we find they have failed to state a cause of action against the City for wrongful death.

(2) The sine qua non of any negligence action is, of course, the existence of a duty of care owed by the alleged wrongdoer to the person injured, or to a class of which he is a member. (Rodriguez v. Bethlehem (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 399 [115 Cal. Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669]; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119 [70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496]; Gregorian

Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief