When Does Ohio Law Require Someone to Help?

Imagine you witness someone being violently attacked by another person on the street. There is nobody else around, and they look like they need help. Most people would feel a moral obligation to intervene or, at the very least, call emergency services, but are you legally required to intervene under Ohio law?

In Ohio, there is often a major difference between what people believe someone should do and what the law legally requires them to do. While most people would agree that helping an injured person is the right thing to do morally, Ohio law typically does not impose a legal duty to rescue another person from danger. In most situations, a person may watch an emergency unfold, fail to intervene, and still face no civil liability. However, there are important exceptions where a legal duty to act does arise, particularly when a “special relationship” exists between the parties or when a business or employer has certain responsibilities toward customers, employees, or others under their care or control.

Understanding the distinction between a moral duty and a legal duty is important after serious injuries, workplace violence incidents, assaults, or other emergencies where bystanders, employers, security personnel, or businesses allegedly failed to help the victim. Whether someone can be held legally responsible for failing to rescue or obtain medical assistance depends heavily on the contextual facts of the incident and the specific duties recognized under Ohio law.

If you or a loved one were injured in a workplace incident, assault, or emergency where others failed to intervene or call for help, speaking with an experienced Ohio personal injury attorney may help determine whether a viable negligence claim exists. The Toledo personal injury lawyers at Charles E. Boyk Law Offices assist injury victims throughout Northwest Ohio and understand the complicated legal questions surrounding negligence, premises liability, workplace injuries, and legal duties owed by businesses, employers, and security companies. Please note that this article solely addresses the law regarding civil liability, not criminal, and that Charles E. Boyk Law Offices is only equipped to assist in civil lawsuits.

The General Rule in Ohio: No Legal Duty to Rescue

Ohio follows the general common law rule that a person ordinarily has no legal duty to rescue or protect another person from harm. Courts have repeatedly explained that simply witnessing someone in danger does not automatically create liability if a bystander fails to act.

In Estate of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Center (Estate of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr., 1997 Ohio LEXIS 278 (Jan. 22, 1997)) , the Ohio Supreme Court explained that there is generally no duty to act affirmatively for another’s aid or protection. The court explained that a duty to act usually only arises where a recognized “special relationship” exists between the parties.

Similarly, in Lajoie v. Maumee River Yacht Club (Lajoie v. Maumee River Yacht Club, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 312, (6th Dist. Feb. 2, 1990).) , an Ohio appellate court specifically stated that Ohio law does not impose a general duty to rescue absent either:

a statutory requirement, or
a special relationship between the parties.

This means that in many tragic situations, a person’s failure to intervene may be morally questionable without necessarily being legally actionable. Someone may believe another individual, business, employer, or security guard should have helped, but civil liability depends on whether Ohio law imposed an actual legal duty to do so.

What Is a “Special Relationship” Under Ohio Law?

Although Ohio typically does not require rescue efforts from witnesses to an emergency, courts recognize exceptions where a special relationship creates a duty to act. These relationships arise when one party has a certain degree of responsibility, authority, control, or protection over another person. Examples include situations where one party exercises custody or supervision over another, such as parent-child relationships, state custodial situations, or mental health facilities responsible for individuals with cognitive impairments or diminished capacity.

Under the Restatement of Torts Section 315, discussed extensively in Estate of Morgan, there may be a duty to control another person’s conduct or protect others from harm when a special relationship exists:

between the defendant and the dangerous person, or
between the defendant and the injured person.

In Estate of Morgan, the Ohio Supreme Court found that mental health professionals may have a duty to protect others when they know or should know that a patient poses a substantial risk of harm. In that case, the counseling center allegedly knew the patient suffered from schizophrenia, had stopped taking medication, and posed a potential danger to his parents. The court concluded that foreseeability alone is not always enough to create a duty, but the special relationship between the therapist and patient created legal obligations that ordinary bystanders would not have.

Examples of relationships that may create heightened duties under Ohio law can include:

employer-employee relationships in certain circumstances,
business owner-invitee (customer) relationships,
psychotherapist-patient relationships,
school-student relationships,
landlord-tenant relationships in limited situations, and
security providers responsible for protecting premises.

Whether a special relationship exists depends heavily on the amount of control, foreseeability, and responsibility involved in the situation.

Do Ohio Businesses Have a Duty to Help Injured Customers?

Ohio courts have also addressed whether businesses have duties to assist customers who are injured on their property.

In Heys v. Blevins (Heys v. Blevins, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2536, (2nd Dist. Jun. 13, 1997).), a customer alleged she was violently assaulted at a hair salon while the owner watched without intervening or calling for help. The court discussed the duties businesses owe to invitees (people on the premises for economic purposes, such as customers) and explained that business owners may, under some circumstances, have a duty to take reasonable steps to aid injured invitees or obtain medical assistance from emergency services.

However, the court also made clear that businesses are not automatically liable simply because they failed to stop a criminal assault. Instead, courts often consider several factors when determining liability:

whether the danger was foreseeable,
whether the business knew or should have known of the risk,
whether reasonable steps could have been taken to avoid the danger, and
whether the failure to act was the cause of additional injuries.

Importantly, the Heys court explained that when someone sues based on a failure to rescue or obtain medical care, the injured person may only recover for injuries that could have been avoided had reasonable assistance been provided. In other words, it is not enough to argue that someone should have called 911. The injured person must also prove that the delay or failure to act caused additional harm or worsened the injuries.

This issue frequently arises in cases involving:

assaults at businesses,
apartment complexes,
bars and restaurants,
shopping centers,
concerts,
workplaces,
private security companies.

Why Foreseeability Matters

In many Ohio negligence cases involving assaults or emergencies, foreseeability becomes one of the most important legal issues. Courts often examine whether the defendant knew or should have known that a dangerous situation was likely to occur.

For example, a completely random criminal attack may not create liability for a business owner or security company. However, liability may become more likely where:

prior violent incidents occurred on the property,
threats had previously been reported,
intoxicated patrons were behaving aggressively,
employees warned management about dangerous conduct,
or security personnel observed escalating violence before an attack occurred.

Ohio courts do not require businesses to prevent every possible crime. However, businesses may have duties to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers.

Does a Security Company Have a Duty to Rescue Someone?

Security companies are often hired to monitor property, deter crime, and protect premises. However, their legal duties are specifically defined by their contracts, which lay out the scope of the services they are required to provide. These duties do not necessarily include preventing unforeseeable criminal acts by third parties.

Ohio courts have repeatedly held that security companies are not automatically insurers of public safety. In Medlen v. Estate of Meyers (Medlen v. Estate of Meyers, 273 F.App’x 464 (6th Cir.2008), an employee was shot by a coworker at a manufacturing facility. Claims were brought against both the employer and the security company. The court ultimately found that the security provider did not owe a duty to protect the employee from the shooting because there was no evidence that the defendants knew or should have known the shooter posed a danger.

Charles E. Boyk Law Offices LLC currently has a pending case with similar facts. Our client was an employee of Amazon and was violently beaten by a group outside an Amazon facility in Rossford, Ohio. Security footage appears to show guards nearby witnessing the assault unfold without intervening or calling 911. The legal question in a case like this is whether the guards owed the victim a legally recognized duty of protection from third-party harm.

Likewise, even if a security guard arguably should have called police or emergency medical services under a moral obligation, liability may still be difficult to prove unless there is evidence that:

the security guard, per his/her contract, had a legal duty to act,
the danger to the victim was foreseeable,
the company/security guard breached that duty, and
the delay in aid caused additional injury to the victim.

Ohio law generally does not require employees or security personnel to unreasonably endanger themselves while responding to emergencies. In many cases, the extent of any legal duty may simply involve contacting law enforcement or emergency responders.

Workplace Injuries and Ohio Workers’ Compensation Immunity

When workplace injuries occur, another major legal issue arises under Ohio’s workers’ compensation system.

Under Ohio law, employees injured while performing duties in furtherance of employment are typically limited to workers’ compensation benefits as their exclusive remedy against their employer. In exchange for guaranteed compensation regardless of fault, employers are generally immune from civil lawsuits.

Courts have repeatedly held that Ohio employers are immune from most workplace negligence lawsuits unless the employer acted with deliberate intent to injure the employee. This is an extremely high legal standard.

As a result, even if an employer failed to rescue an injured worker, failed to intervene during an assault, or failed to call emergency services, those allegations would more likely amount to negligence rather than an intentional tort. Because of workers’ compensation immunity, negligence claims against the employer are often barred.

This issue can arise in situations involving:

workplace violence,
delayed medical treatment,
inadequate security,
industrial accidents,
warehouse injuries,
manufacturing facilities, and
large commercial properties.

For example, if security personnel or supervisors allegedly watched an attack occur without intervening, the injured worker may feel abandoned or betrayed. Morally, many people would expect immediate assistance. Legally, however, Ohio law may still limit recovery unless the injured worker can establish an intentional tort or identify a separate third party that owed an independent duty.

Moral Obligations Versus Legal Liability

One of the most difficult realities for injury victims and families is understanding that moral wrongdoing does not always create civil liability. Ohio courts distinguish between what society believes people should do and what the law requires them to do.

A person may morally believe that:

a business owner should intervene during an assault,
security guards should immediately call 911 or aid the victim,
employers should protect workers from violence by third parties,
bystanders should help injured individuals, or
someone witnessing an emergency should render aid.

Yet Ohio negligence law requires more than moral blameworthiness. To successfully recover compensation, an injured person must typically prove:

the defendant owed a legal duty,
the defendant breached that duty,
the breach caused the injury, and
compensable damages resulted.

Without a legally recognized duty, there can usually be no negligence claim, regardless of how upsetting or unfair the situation may seem.

Ohio’s Good Samaritan Law

Although Ohio does not require bystanders to rescue others, Ohio law does provide certain legal protections for people who voluntarily render emergency assistance.

Under Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute (ORC Ann. 2305.23), individuals who provide emergency care or treatment at the scene of an emergency are often protected from civil liability for ordinary negligence, so long as they act in good faith and do not engage in willful and deliberate misconduct in aiding the victim.

These laws are designed to encourage people to assist injured individuals without fear of being held legally liable if their rescue efforts are imperfect. However, Good Samaritan protections are limited and may not apply in every circumstance, especially if the rescuer is reckless and worsens the emergency.

Voluntary Assumption of a Duty to Aid: Can Someone Be Liable for Making an Emergency Worse?

Although Ohio typically does not require bystanders to rescue others, liability may arise when someone voluntarily intervenes and does so negligently. Courts often recognize that while a person may have no initial duty to act, once they voluntarily undertake rescue efforts or assume responsibility for assisting an injured person, they may be required to exercise reasonable care in performing those actions.

For example, a person who promises to call 911 but fails to do so, prevents others from helping, abandons rescue efforts after taking control of the situation, or worsens an injured person’s condition through careless actions may potentially face liability under ordinary negligence principles. The rationale behind this rule is that once someone affirmatively intervenes, other people may rely on those rescue efforts instead of seeking alternative assistance.

This issue can arise in cases involving:
• delayed emergency response (waiting too long to call 911),
• workplace supervisors handling emergencies internally,
• intoxicated individuals attempting to aid injured persons,
• security personnel assuming control of an emergency scene, or
• businesses attempting to remedy emergencies internally instead of contacting police or medical responders.

In these situations, the legal issue is often not whether the defendant initially had a duty to rescue, but whether their voluntary actions created a duty to exercise reasonable care and whether negligent intervention caused additional harm to the victim.

When the Defendant Created the Dangerous Situation

Ohio law is more likely to impose a duty to act where the defendant’s own conduct created or contributed to the dangerous situation. Even if no initial duty to rescue existed, a party who negligently causes injury to another person may have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm or obtain medical assistance.

Discuss Your Case with an Ohio Personal Injury Lawyer

Ohio law carefully distinguishes between moral expectations and legally enforceable duties. While many people may feel ethically obligated to assist someone in danger, civil liability generally arises only where Ohio law recognizes a specific duty to act. Whether such a duty exists often depends on special relationships, foreseeability, contractual obligations, premises liability principles, workplace immunity rules, and the surrounding factual circumstances of the incident.

Cases involving failures to rescue, negligent security, workplace violence, or delayed medical assistance are often legally complicated and highly dependent on the specific facts of the case. Questions involving special relationships, foreseeability, premises liability, workers’ compensation immunity, and third-party negligence frequently require extensive legal analysis and investigation.

If you or a loved one suffered injuries after others failed to intervene, provide aid, or contact emergency services, discussing the situation with an experienced personal injury attorney may help determine whether Ohio law recognizes a viable claim. The Toledo personal injury lawyers at Charles E. Boyk Law Offices represent injury victims throughout Toledo and Northwest Ohio and can evaluate potential claims involving businesses, employers, property owners, and security companies.