Duty to Rescue – Does Arizona Law Require You to Give a Stranger Water?
Is it against the law to refuse to give someone water in Arizona? Is there a Duty to Rescue? The simple answer is no. There is no law, statute, common law case, or otherwise that makes it illegal to refuse to give a person water.  Generally, you can refuse to give someone water in Arizona, although, it’s an inhumane thing to do that most normal people wouldn’t dream of doing.

Nevertheless, it’s a common myth that it is illegal for a business or a person to refuse to give someone a drink of water in Arizona. Where this myth originated from is unclear. But there is no law requiring this. This issue does implicate some basic principles regarding duties, and specifically, the Duty to Rescue. Although there is no Duty to Rescue in Arizona, depending on the circumstances, a Duty to Rescue may arise and refusing to give a stranger water could lead to negligence and liability.

Under What Circumstances is There a Duty to Rescue?
As mentioned above, a general principle of personal injury law is that there is no Duty to Rescue. This includes providing another person with water, even if the person is dehydrated and suffering from heat exhaustion from the brutal Arizona summer sun. However, like any general principle of law, there are often exceptions.

A major exception is when someone undertakes a Duty to Rescue, he or she can incur liability if the Duty to Rescue is performed negligently. Using our water example, does one undertake a Duty to Rescue by providing another person with water? The short answer is unlikely. Once the rescue is undertaken, the rescuer’s conduct will be objectively analyzed by what a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

A classic law school example illustrates this point. Person A is swimming in the ocean when he or she begins to drown. Person B sees Person A in distress. Person B doesn’t have a Duty to Rescue Person A. Person B can simply turn and walk away without incurring liability. Rather than Person B pulling Person A to safety, Person B simply turns around and begins swimming back toward shore. At what point has Person B undertaken a Duty to Rescue Person A? Once Person B begins running toward the ocean, steps foot in the ocean, begins swimming or reaching Person A? These acts fall along a continuum and the undertaking threshold will depend on other contextual facts and the particular jury. Obviously, there’s a good argument that Person B has undertaken the Duty to Rescue upon reaching Person A.

The analysis doesn’t end there. Once the Duty to Rescue is undertaken, Person B must continue with the rescue if a reasonable person would have done so under the same or similar circumstances. If there is a dangerous riptide or sharks in the immediate area, perhaps it was reasonable for Person B to stop he act before completing the rescue. What if by jumping in to save Person A, Person B’s acts deterred others watching from the shore from jumping in to save Person A? Like most law school hypotheticals and many real life fact patterns, there is enough ambiguity to leave wiggle room to debate both sides of whether a Duty to Rescue was undertaken, and whether the duty was undertaken in a reasonable manner.

Circling back to the initial issue, and why simply providing a person with water does not in and of itself create a Duty to Rescue the stranger. Arguably, there is a big distinction in the act – providing water to a dehydrated stranger versus jumping into the ocean to save a drowning swimmer. However, the act of providing water coupled with another overt act (e.g. assisting the person into your house) may have a similar effect of deterring others from undertaking the rescue or create the same level of reliance that the drowning swimmer has on the rescuer. But again, whether a Duty to Rescue was undertaken will depend on the specific facts in a case and whether a jury ultimately agrees.

Other exceptions include when there is a special relationship between the rescuer and the person in distress. Examples of this special relationship include triggering a Duty to Rescue include an employer and employee, parent or guardian and child. Another exception to the no general Duty to Rescue if a person creates the perilous situation that requires the rescue. For example, if a person operates a boat in a negligent manner, and as a consequence, his or her passenger falls overboard into the water, the boat operator owes the passenger a duty care, which would include a Duty to Rescue.

Although there is no general Duty to Rescue in Arizona, or provide a glass of water to someone who requests it, there are certain exceptions where a person would owe another a Duty to Rescue. If you feel as though you were the victim of a failure to rescue or negligent rescue, and sustained personal injuries as a result of the negligence, contact Paul Ticen for an evaluation of your case.