Week viii part 1 | Education homework help

Case Study 1: 50 points 

Review Case Study 18-1: EMT Injured by Toxic Fumes – Files Suit Against Chemical Company, found on page 231 in the textbook. Kapherr v. MFG Chemical, Inc., No. A06A0184, December 28, 2005. 

The full decision is available at 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1005355.html 

In Kapherr, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the fireman’s rule does apply to emergency medical technicians. Address the argument that Kapherr maintained regarding treating the injured only if the scene had been secured. Do you agree with the court’s reasoning in responding to this defense? Explain why, or why not. 

Describe a set of circumstances under which it would not be reasonable to consider that the emergency responder has assumed the risk of the hazardous circumstances at the scene. 

Research and determine the status of the fireman’s rule in Georgia. Identify whether there has been any change to the law since Kapherr. Research and determine the status of the Fireman’s rule in your state. If your state is Georgia or Florida, please select a neighboring state. Has the rule been adopted and enacted into law? Have there been any exceptions enacted into law? 

Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations. 

Case Study 2: 50 points

Read Espinoza v. Schulenburg, CV-05-0158-PR, Arizona Supreme Court, 2006. 

To view the full decision copy and paste the following web address into a web browser: 

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/0706appellate.pdf 

Espinoza was an off-duty firefighter and emergency medical technician who was injured while providing roadside assistance to the Schulenburgs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Schulenburgs, holding that the firefighter’s rule bars Espinoza’s claim. The court of appeals reversed that decision, holding that the firefighter’s rule should be narrowly construed so as not to bar the claims of off duty firefighters. 

To see the full Court of Appeals decision, copy and paste the following web address into a web browser: 

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/CV040438.pdf 

However, the appeals court remanded for determination of whether Espinoza had a duty as part of her job as a firefighter to render assistance, in which case the court would apparently conclude that the rule should apply to bar her suit. On appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, a more conclusive decision was handed down. That Court made the clear distinction between on-duty and off duty, finding that Espinoza volunteered to render aid and, therefore, the fireman’s rule did not apply. 

Discuss how the Arizona Supreme Court distinguished between on-duty and off duty. Do you agree with this distinction? Can you suggest other distinguishing factors that should have been considered? Should the fact that one receives workers’ compensation for the injury enter into the distinction? Describe how your department addresses rendering aid off duty. Is it part of your “duty” as a firefighter, or is it more so an ethical duty? Also, describe how your department addresses off duty injuries incurred as a result of rendering aid. 

Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations. 

Please submit your Case Study 1 and 2 responses as one Word document.
 

REFERENCES MUST BE IN CORRECT APA FORMAT