Calif. Judge: Alameda Had No Duty to Aid Drowning Man

Peter Hegarty
The Oakland Tribune
Created: February 12, 2013
A California judge said Alameda police and firefighters had no legal duty to help a 52-year-old man who waded into San Francisco Bay and succumbed to hypothermia in 2011.





Feb. 12--ALAMEDA -- The police and firefighters who remained on shore as Raymond Zack waded into San Francisco Bay on Memorial Day 2011 and succumbed to hypothermia were under no legal duty to help him, a judge ruled Monday.

Officers and firefighters also did not worsen the 52-year-old Zack's condition by clearing Robert Crown Memorial State Beach or by preventing people from going to his aid, Judge George Hernandez said in a ruling that effectively tosses out a lawsuit that Zack's family filed against the city of Alameda.

Robert Cartwright, the family's attorney, said he will ask the judge to reconsider. He said he will also appeal if the judge refuses. Along with first responders, dozens of people were on the beach when the fully-clothed Zack waded into the water and stood at least 100 yards from shore.

Police said they stayed on the beach because Zack was suicidal and possibly violent, while firefighters said they were not certified in land-water rescue (they were the prior year,)and did not have a boat that could maneuver in the shallow water. Officers and firefighters did attempt to secure a rescue boat from the U.S. Coast Guard, however. Zack's family maintain onlookers should have been allowed to help.(Fire and Police Dept stopped onlookers from participation because of possible legal issues)

"It was a very tragic situation," said Gregory Fox, the city's attorney. "But the court found that the officers acted reasonably and within the law."

Emergency crews were dispatched after Dolores Berry, who described herself as Zack's foster mother, asked a

passer-by to call 911, saying Zack did not know how to swim and was possibly suicidal, the court heard. Zack reportedly suffered from mental illness. An onlooker eventually pulled Zack back onto shore after he began floating face down. He was pronounced dead a short time later at Alameda Hospital.

"The court finds that under the circumstances presented, there was no moral blame attendant to the conduct of the responding officers and firefighters," Hernandez said in his ruling at the Hayward Hall of Justice.

The judge also said officers and firefighters had no duty to allow people to stay in the area, "or enter the water where they might be exposed to harm or injury or require rescue themselves."

The ruling Monday came after Fox filed a "demurrer," or a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the Zack family's claim. Bernice Jolliff, Zack's sister, and Robert Zack, his brother, were seeking unspecified damages against the city and county of Alameda. Zack's death sparked nationwide criticism of Alameda police and firefighters and prompted an independent investigation by former state Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva on how the departments respond to water-based emergencies.


Reach Peter Hegarty at 510-748-1654 or follow him on Twitter.com/Peter_Hegarty.

 

If fire fighters or people the firefighters didn't stop had gotten killed by him or died trying to save him there would be different fingers being pointed.

I guess ya had to be there.

 

What ever happened to personal responsibility ?


Why should firefighters or law enforcement risk their lives to save some deranged individual hell bent on taking his own life ? At what point do we say enough is enough with trying to save everyone ?

IMO, the police and the firefighters did what they could by making the attempt to obtain the boat, and that was good enough. If more people were allowed to take their own lives because of whatever reason they choose to do, maybe less violence towards others, such as innocent people who become targets of these mentally disturbed individuals, would take place. We just had some nut-job stab a complete stranger in a store here a few weeks back. If he just offed himself, that woman wouldn't have had to go through what she did. I wish more nut-jobs would take their own lives and spare society the sorrow they usually create by harming others.

The family is "suing" to profit from the loss of their psycho dead family member. If they really wanted to "prove a point", they could have found other, more productive ways to promote attention to mental health issues, or regulations concerning how first responders do their jobs.

Now, on another note, if that was someone's dog that went in the drink, I would have jumped right in to save it's ***.....

 

Not sure how they could be responsible if he was believed to be combative.

Some people just don't get it and there is just no helping them.

Gotta get the money where the money is. Probably just a route to a settlement......

I hope the courts hold their ground in this one...

 

Personally, I believe they have no legal obligation.

But that needs to be conveyed to the general public, and legislation needs to be introduced to protect someone protecting himself along with that.

If they can save you, fine, if not, don't prosecute me for saving myself.

Obviously that would pertain to police, not firefighters or EMS.

 

A reported suicidal male enters the water, for what reason?

I would venture to say the respective departmental SOP, SOG, or protocols take precedence.

Without being directly involved in the incident my opinion is meaningless.

 

"Your Views,Pro & Con"?? I wouldn't second guess the responders on-scene..

It long established legal precedence that the government ( i.e. Police or Fire ) have NO legal obligation to the "protection of the public"....hence the removal of "serve and protect" from many agencies patrol cars...
Their role is to enforce the laws of the society, or locality they are employed by. Fire is slightly different, in that they are charged with providing aid WHEN REQUESTED,( i.e., responding to a fire alarm) but NOT at the expense of their own safety or life..

There are many many officers and firefighters who go above and beyond that definition on a daily basis, and perhaps there is an unreasonable expectation from society at large because of that, however the truth is that our police and firefighters have just as much right to go home at night as the rest of us, and we need to keep that in mind.
This judge made a good decision and I hope it ends there.

 

I'm with everyone else. Why risk everyone else?