Castro Valley: Janitor saw elderly become weak

[happyslug]

51. That is NOT the Common Law Rule

Now California is one of 10 states that have a law requiring people to notify police but only of crimes where the victim is under age 14, thus it does NOT apply in this case:

152.3. (a) Any person who reasonably believes that he or she has observed the commission of any of the following offenses where the victim is a child under the age of 14 years shall notify a peace
officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2:
(1) Murder.
(2) Rape.
(3) A violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 288 of the Penal Code.
(b) This section shall not be construed to affect privileged relationships as provided by law.
(c) The duty to notify a peace officer imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) is satisfied if the notification or an attempt to provide notice is made by telephone or any other means.
(d) Failure to notify as required pursuant to subdivision (a) is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person who is related to either the victim or the offender, including a husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, or other person related by consanguinity or affinity.
(2) A person who fails to report based on a reasonable mistake of fact.
(3) A person who fails to report based on a reasonable fear for his or her own safety or for the safety of his or her family.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=142-181

Thus, even in California, you do NOT have to call 911 in your hypothetical. You can just keep on walking and you would have violated no law. If you helped the person, you can be held liable for any harm you did (and thus I would advise you to all 911 to minimize any harm you may do).

Now, based on the facts in this case, he was an employee of his employer. The Employer had contracted with these patients to take care of them and that duty of care extended to the employees. Thus even under the Common Law, the employee had a duty to take care of these people until relieved of that duty, a relief the STATE failed to do till the 26th.

Now, there are restrictions as to how LONG a time period such care can be provided. Prior to 1865, no restrictions existed as to the length of care that could be expected, but in 1865 the US passed the Amendment that outlawed Slavery, which put a restriction as to how long you can demand someone to take care of someone who is not a blood relative (I.e. to long a duty you are making someone a slave and that was illegal after 1865).

The courts have been reluctant to determine when it is reasonable for someone to leave someone that the first person had a duty to take care of, but the person doing the care is doing it for no compensation. In most cases either blood relatives take up the duties (the traditional method) or in many modern situations for in most cases the State steps in and takes over the duties.

In this case the state took over on the 26th of October. My position is this employee had a duty (along with his employer and the other employees of the home) to take care of the patients till the State took over. I suspect that is what the State was counting on, but the employer skipped town, something the State and County was NOT expecting (Yes, I believe they should have been expecting it, but I suspect the State refused to even consider it possible). For skipping town the employer should be jailed, but I doubt he or she ever will be.

Just explaining who had a duty in this case. This employee fulfilled his duties, but the Employer clearly did not.