I wanted to follow-up my interview that took place with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday night regarding the tragic death of Natasha Richardson. I have received inquiries from numerous individuals asking that I address some of the other legal or liability questions that have arisen now that conflicting information has come out about the time line leading up to Ms. Richardson’s death.
Initial reports were that Ms. Richardson received medical attention fairly early, but that she declined to be taken to a hospital. Then the ambulance company reported later that they were called to the scene but never actually made contact with Ms. Richardson. Yet the EMT (emergency medical technicians) crew apparently were able to visually observe Ms. Richardson from a distance. So the primary question is, who turned the ambulance crew away?
I told Anderson that in my jurisdiction an EMT crew that arrives on scene has an obligation to make contact with the injured person. To at least speak to the person and perhaps perform a limited exam or check that person’s vitals. If that person declines medical attention, he or she is properly informed of the risk of not receiving further medical attention. A written waiver may be signed. Usually that person is also instructed about certain warning signs or symptoms that may appear, and if they do, what that person should do next (e.g., go to the ER immediately, call a doctor, etc.).
The resort initially reported that Ms. Richardson declined further aid, yet that would be impossible if the EMT’s never had contact with her. So who instructed the EMT to turn away and not at least speak with her? If it was a resort employee, then this may raise a potential liability claim against the resort.
Furthermore, if the EMT crew was turned away by someone other than Ms. Richardson, why didn’t the EMT’s refuse and insist on speaking to Ms. Richardson before a decision was made to leave? As I said earlier, my experience has been that EMT’s have an obligation to make contact with the injured party if they arrive on scene. So if the EMT crew never bothered to confirm with Ms. Richardson herself that she did not want further medical attention, this raises a potential liability claim against the ambulance company.
Remember, Ms. Richardson suffered a fairly serious head injury. Initial reports were that she never hit her head and acted fine, but that is extremely unlikely given the fact she suffered a subdural hematoma. So whether she had the lucidity and mental capacity to reject further medical attention also must be questioned.
One must also consider that often times with head injury patients they will minimize the injury. Usually that person has no clue how a head injury which may initially appear minor, can in fact rapidly deteriorate into a life threatening situation. So at the very least an objective medical expert should examine that person to determine if in fact further medical attention is warranted. If no futher treatment is administered, usually the injured person’s family is instructed to watch the person very closely and to look for potential warning signs that the injury may be more serious than initially thought. Was that done with Ms. Richardson? The preliminary reports suggest not, but again, I think further investigation is necessary.
Now there is conflicting information about the reasons for the delay in treating Ms. Richardson. So, whether a liability or legal claim may exist against the resort for negligently delaying treatment or possibly denying proper medical attention altogether must be considered. The starting point may be to inspect the resort’s policies and guidelines about what happens when a person is taken off the slopes following an injury. I certainly would want to speak to every person who had contact with Ms. Richardson during the few hours she was alive before her death. What did they observe? What did the resort know about her medical attention in the hours leading up to her death? Did she in fact sign a waiver? If so, was that waiver made knowingly and voluntarily? That is, was Ms. Richardson fully informed about the risks or warning signs associated with head injuries when she purportedly declined further medical attention? These are important questions that should be answered.
Finally, much has been said about Ms. Richardson not wearing a helmet. Yes, the odds are quite high that had a helmet been worn, the injury might have been prevented altogether. But even if we assume that Ms. Richardson, a novice skier, was properly advised by the resort or ski rental shop to wear a helmet and one was in fact available, her failure to wear a helmet should not excuse later negligent conduct by the resort or the ambulance company.
The example I like to give is when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. That person caused the accident and then later receives treatment at the hospital. But the hospital provides negligent medical care that leads to the person’s death. The hospital cannot escape liability for malpractice by simply arguing that the death never would have occurred if the patient had not caused the car accident in the first place. If that were a suitable defense, then healthcare providers could easily avoid responsibility for negligent treatment in many, many cases. However, there may be some jurisdictions in the United States that might permit such a defense as a way to mitigate a claim for damages.
So the fact that Ms. Richardson did not wear a helmet might have prevented the injury or reduced its severity. But that fact alone, at least in my jurisdiction, would not operate as a complete defense to negligent conduct committed by individuals who were responsible for providing Ms. Richardson with prompt medical attention following her injury.
Related posts:
Sooooooo glad you are raising these questions. I wish folks would stop referring to Ms. Richardson’s fall as “minor” because it gives the impression that the outcome was some sort of divine or unavoidable fate. In fact, very little information has been revealed about the actual fall except that the instructor who witnessed it called the ski patrol who called an ambulance. This is not a routine response to a “tumble” on the bunny slope. It must have been pretty dramatic for these trained ski experts to react so strongly. I don’t know anyone who even knows anyone who has been taken off the mountain by the ski patrol on the sled. The resort has minimized the seriousness of the accident from the very beginning. The only people who’ve said the fall was minor, that she refused treatment, and that she was talking and laughing are the resort spokesmen. I predict that at the end of the day, we’ll find out the fall was not a “minor tumble” and that leaving the decision regarding additional medical care to the victim of the fall or to non-medically trained staff was …. in part responsible for her death.