Trim v. YMCA of Central Maryland, Inc.
165 A.3d 534
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Vincent Trim collapsed while playing basketball at a YMCA; he was unconscious, pulseless, and exhibiting agonal breathing — signs consistent with sudden cardiac arrest. CPR was performed by a trained YMCA instructor, but the on-site AED was not retrieved before paramedics arrived and later used.
- The YMCA held a valid certificate under Maryland Code § 13-517 and COMAR regulations for the Public Access AED Program; it had trained personnel and an AED placed near the court.
- Valerie Trim sued for wrongful death/survival, alleging the YMCA had a statutory/regulatory duty to use the AED and was negligent per the statute/regulations for failing to deploy it.
- The YMCA moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing (1) § 13-517 and its regulations do not impose an affirmative duty to use an AED, (2) the statute contains an immunity provision shielding it, and (3) the YMCA membership agreement exculpated the YMCA. The circuit court granted the YMCA’s motion.
- On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed de novo whether the statute or regulations created an affirmative duty to use an AED and affirmed the circuit court: neither § 13-517 nor its implementing regulations impose an obligation to administer defibrillation in the circumstances presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 13-517 or COMAR impose an affirmative duty to use an AED when someone suffers or reasonably appears to suffer sudden cardiac arrest | Trim: statute and regulations create a duty requiring registered facilities to use AEDs in such circumstances | YMCA: statute/regulations only govern access, maintenance, training, and certification; they do not mandate use | Held: No affirmative duty to use an AED is imposed by § 13-517 or its regulations |
| Whether the YMCA is immune under § 13-517 for acts/omissions in provision of AEDs | Trim: immunity provision does not bar liability because statute creates duty | YMCA: statutory immunity shields liabilities for acts/omissions in AED provision | Held: Court did not reach immunity issue (unnecessary after resolving duty question) |
| Whether YMCA membership exculpatory clause bars Trim’s claims | Trim: exculpatory clause does not negate statutory/regulatory obligations | YMCA: membership agreement releases YMCA from liability | Held: Court did not decide (unnecessary given holding on statutory duty) |
| Whether regulatory history/amendments show legislative intent to require AED use | Trim: amendments and drafting history reflect an intent to require use (e.g., removal of permissive language, use of “expected” operator) | YMCA: changes concern training and certification prerequisites, not a duty to deploy AEDs | Held: Legislative history and amendments do not create an affirmative duty to use AEDs |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackburn Ltd. P’ship v. Paul, 438 Md. 100 (statute or regulation may prescribe a duty of care)
- Brooks v. Lewin III Realty, Inc., 378 Md. 70 (violation of statutes/ordinances designed to protect a class can be evidence of negligence)
- Kiriakos v. Phillips, 448 Md. 440 (examples of statutes imposing affirmative duties)
- Wietzke v. Chesapeake Conference Ass’n, 421 Md. 355 (ordinance imposing clear mandatory duty creates negligence basis)
- Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 342 (statute requiring AEDs and training did not create affirmative duty to use AEDs)