Very interesting allegations in NY Complaint

The NY Post is reporting a lawsuit over the death of the spouse in a health club. The article points out that the state requires AED’s (automatic external defibrillators) to be installed in the health club. The complaint alleges that no one used the AED. See Gym Let Wife Die: Husband. (Their article title not mine.)

The statute, NY CLS Gen Bus § 627-a (2008) Automated external defibrillator requirements states:

1. Every health club as defined under paragraph b of subdivision one of section three thousand-d of the public health law whose membership is five hundred persons or more shall have on the premises at least one automated external defibrillator and shall have in attendance, at all times during business hours, at least one individual performing employment or individual acting as an authorized volunteer who holds a valid certification of completion of a course in the study of the operation of AEDs and a valid certification of the completion of a course in the training of cardiopulmonary resuscitation provided by a nationally recognized organization or association.

What is also in the article is the allegation that the gym club kept other people from assisting the stricken patron. No reason is given for those actions by the club employees in the article. The article is a report of a complaint or maybe a press release so it is quite unclear as to what really happened.

However that is an interesting allegation. Generally there is no duty to assist someone in an emergency unless you put the person in the emergency or you have a statutory duty to do so. Most times people who have a statutory duty to assist are health care workers, but even that is very limited, usually only when the person is in their care all ready. That duty seems to be required, but is not specifically identified in the NY statute.

People with a legal duty are guides with clients, instructors with students, etc.

Here though, even if the health club employees did not help, what is the liability for keeping others from helping? I’ve only known of one other case similar to this one. In that case from New Jersey co-workers were prevented from helping a dying co-worker; (if memory serves me correctly from a long time ago.)

The statute quoted above states that an employee who has been trained in the use of the AED is an “authorized volunteer” under the statute. Probably this provides additional protection from lawsuits for the individual who uses the AED through federal and state volunteer immunity act.