Media & Insights
December 3, 2024
Murphy v. City of Petaluma (November 25, 2024, A168012) __Cal.Rptr.3d__ [2024 WL 4880016]
Plaintiff was involved in a car crash and repeatedly insisted to two paramedics that she was uninjured and did not want or need medical assistance. She refused treatment even after the paramedics recommended transportation to a hospital as a precautionary measure. Paramedics determined plaintiff was alert, had the capacity to refuse medical treatment, and expressly exercised her right to do so. Plaintiff then suffered a stroke related to the collision and sued the city for medical negligence. The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the paramedics did not have a duty to assess plaintiff’s medical condition. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that under the negligent undertaking doctrine, defendants did not assume a duty to render medical assistance . Plaintiff repeatedly refused treatment and defendants did not increase the harm or risk of harm to plaintiff, did not make any promises to plaintiff regarding medical assistance, and did not fail to follow through on those promises.
Plaintiff was involved in a car crash and repeatedly insisted to two paramedics that she was uninjured and did not want or need medical assistance. She refused treatment even after the paramedics recommended transportation to a hospital as a precautionary measure. Paramedics determined plaintiff was alert, had the capacity to refuse medical treatment, and expressly exercised her right to do so. Plaintiff then suffered a stroke related to the collision and sued the city for medical negligence. The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the paramedics did not have a duty to assess plaintiff’s medical condition. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that under the negligent undertaking doctrine, defendants did not assume a duty to render medical assistance . Plaintiff repeatedly refused treatment and defendants did not increase the harm or risk of harm to plaintiff, did not make any promises to plaintiff regarding medical assistance, and did not fail to follow through on those promises.
