Paramedic charged with Involuntary Manslaughter.
zei...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Cleveland Plain Dealer. Anyone wanting a copy of the article, please send me
email at zeitler%iccgcc...@consrt.rok.com and I will send it to you.
This is reprinted without permission.
AMBULAND DRIVER QUESTIONS JUSTICE
Friend say Cleveland man imprisioned after fatal crash was just doing his job.
by Scott Stephens.
April 26, 1989... "It was a clear and warm spring evening when Montecalvo
(Michael A.) and his partner, Rick Vanek, both moonlighting for LifeCare
Ambuland Service Inc. of Elyria, received a call of a reported traffic accident
involving three children and a baby in Elyria.
The two paramedics were driving through Lorain. They immediately flipped on
the emergency lights and siren and headed south to Elyria.
Most cars at the intersection of Broadway and Cooper Foster Park Rd. had come
to a halt. Montecalvo would later say he saw no traffic moving and that the
coast appeared to be clear.
For whatever reason, one car did not stop.
That car was driven by Angela M. Robinson of Lorain. As Montecalvo, traveling
south on Broadway, shot through the intersection, Robinson's car emerged from
the cube lane on Cooper Foster and pulled around the other idling vehicles.
The ambulance struck the car broadside. Robinson was thrown from the twisted
wreckage. The ambulance rolled on its side and slid 138 feet before stopping.
Montecalvo and Vanek, who were not seriously injured, leaped out and worked on
the victim in a futile attempt to save the young woman's life. Robinson,
who was seven weeks pregnant, died at St. Joseph Hospital in Lorain of extensive
skull fractures and a ruptured liver and spleen, according to the Lorain
County coroner's office.
Montecalvo was not drunk or on drugs, authorities said. He had an unblemished
driving record, not so much as a traffic ticket."
...
"On May 16, 1989, a Lorain County grand jury returned an indictment charging
Montecalvo with felony counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and involuntary
manslaughter involving the accident with Robinson. He also was indicted on
misdemeanor counts of reckless operation, not allowing an assured clear
distance, disobeying traffic signals and failing to proceed with caution through
a red light or stop sign in an emergency vehicle."
..
"A Lorain County jury found Montecalvo quilty of involuntary manslaughter, a
felony, and failing to proceed with caution through a red light or stop sign
in an emergency vehicle, a minor misdemeanor. He was acquitted of the other
charges.
Last September, the Ohio Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, affirmed the
conviction. The Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Montecalvo
remained free on an appellate bond while the case was being appealed.
On March 8, Lorain County Common Pleas Judge Lynett M. McGough imposed a two-
to-10 year prision sentence. Montecalvo will be eligible for super shock
probation after serving six months, or straight parole after serving one
year and five months of his sentence."
This is a brief outline of this article. I don't remember anything about
this when it happened. I though it may be a good topic of conversation for
this group.
Judy.
zei...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
some consideration I think that they should be included.
In article <4782.2...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, zei...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
> This is a small excerpt of an article which appeared in the Sunday, June 2
> Cleveland Plain Dealer. Anyone wanting a copy of the article, please send me
> email at zeitler%iccgcc...@consrt.rok.com and I will send it to you.
>
> This is reprinted without permission.
>
> AMBULAND DRIVER QUESTIONS JUSTICE
> Friend say Cleveland man imprisioned after fatal crash was just doing his job.
> by Scott Stephens.
>> several paragraphs removed
>
> "On May 16, 1989, a Lorain County grand jury returned an indictment charging
> Montecalvo with felony counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and involuntary
> manslaughter involving the accident with Robinson. He also was indicted on
> misdemeanor counts of reckless operation, not allowing an assured clear
> distance, disobeying traffic signals and failing to proceed with caution through
> a red light or stop sign in an emergency vehicle."
>
"The case went to trial in September 1989. A prosecution acceident re-
construction expert testified the ambulance was traveling 60 to 65 mph when the
accident occurred. A defense expert placed the speed considerably lower.
Montecalvo said that the last time he could remember looking at the speedometer
- about a mile from the intersection - he was traveling at about 60 mph. But
he said he slowed down at the intersection.
> "A Lorain County jury found Montecalvo quilty of involuntary manslaughter, a
> felony, and failing to proceed with caution through a red light or stop sign
> in an emergency vehicle, a minor misdemeanor. He was acquitted of the other
> charges.
>
No where in the article does it state the speed limit in that area.
Judy
Sebastian Rueckert
>
> The ambulance struck the car broadside.
>
stressed several key points:
1) Always, always, ALWAYS slow down at intersections, check the coast and then
proceed through the intersection with CAUTION!
2) When you flip on those lights and then manage to get into an accident,
consider it to have been your fault.
When the newspaper article uses such loaded words as "shot" and an ambulance
(a very heavy vehicle) manages to slide 138 feet (!!) AFTER striking another car
broadside then I would tend to think that the ambulance driver did not
fulfill key point #1 above and most probably rightfully got caught on key
point #2.
Just my two bits
S. Rueckert
AEMT III
P.S. When I say "slow down" I mean 5-15mph... not 30 or 40.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Sebastian A. Rueckert Albert Einstein College of Medicine
1945 Eastchester Rd.
Bronx, NY 10461-2189 Class of 1994
_______________________________________________________________________________
Floyd Davidson
>In my EVOC class, we were told that ANY accidents that happened in the
>emergency mode were the fault of the emergency vehicle unless it was obviously
>the fault of the other driver. This, of course, makes very little sense. If
Depends on state law, which may vary, but it is probably pretty close
to the same everywhere. The particular laws that I have read (local ones
only) don't say anything about obvious fault of the other driver! It
just says ANY accident related to emergency lights is the fault of the
vehicle/driver with the lights. That could mean a car two blocks away
that smacks a telephone pole. It does make sense too. The entire purpose
of running with lights on is to distract everyones attention and focus
it on YOU. That is a significant risk. You definitely want it to work,
so you definitely are responsible for the results, good and bad.
(Keep in mind that that law applies to any "emergency vehicle". That
includes police cars. I don't know how they do it elsewhere, but in
the last few years it seems every police force around here has gone
to light bars that can be several combinations of colors front and
back, and they are *very* reluctant to turn on the red ones.)
>On a similar note, I was riding in an ambulance a few weeks ago when we came to
>a red stoplight. The three lanes ahead of use were all blocked, so one of the
>cars pulled out through the intersection (against the light). My driver
>blanched and swore quietly and when I asked him later what the problem was he
>replied that if the drivier of that car had gotten into an accident it would
>have been my driver's "fault". So we are now responsible for the unprovoked
>actions of idiot drivers.
That exact situation was covered in the first EMT course I ever took.
The instructor had had it happen to him. It was an enlightening
example of why red lights are not always necessary, or why one might
want to plan ahead and turn them off! (They ended up jumping the curb
into the oncoming lane because not one car on all four corners would
dare move! Scared 'em pretty bad too!)
>I don't think the medic in the story should have been charged, much less
>convicted, but that's the way the law stands. Changes must be made in the
>laws before the rest of us are safe from similar action.
Better to understand how to avoid it. Someone else has posted that
proceeding through an intersection at 5-10 MPH is appropriate. I
agree. Maybe slower sometimes too. And stopping first might help
too. Not getting to the scene or to the hospital is much worse
than being a few seconds slower (and we are talking mere seconds).
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
fl...@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest.
PJ Geraghty
emergency mode were the fault of the emergency vehicle unless it was obviously
the fault of the other driver. This, of course, makes very little sense. If
with failure-to-yield? Don't hold your breath. (apologies for the bad taste)
On a similar note, I was riding in an ambulance a few weeks ago when we came to
a red stoplight. The three lanes ahead of use were all blocked, so one of the
cars pulled out through the intersection (against the light). My driver
blanched and swore quietly and when I asked him later what the problem was he
replied that if the drivier of that car had gotten into an accident it would
have been my driver's "fault". So we are now responsible for the unprovoked
actions of idiot drivers.
I don't think the medic in the story should have been charged, much less
convicted, but that's the way the law stands. Changes must be made in the
laws before the rest of us are safe from similar action.
_________________________________________________________________________
|PJ Geraghty, DC/MDEMT-A...FF2B |Please remember that my employers|
|2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 323 | and my school do not respect my|
|Washington, DC 20006 | opinions, so there is no reason|
|(301) 409-0648 | for you to, either!|
|JX655C@GWUVM | |
|JX6...@GWUVM.GWU.EDU | Guinness is GOOD For You!|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
zei...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
>> This is a small excerpt of an article which appeared in the Sunday, June 2
>> Cleveland Plain Dealer. Anyone wanting a copy of the article, please send me
>> email at zeitler%iccgcc...@consrt.rok.com and I will send it to you.
>>
The article is extremely long. Anyone liking a copy please send me your
mailing address (not email) or a fax number. I cannot spend the time or
energy to retype the whole article.
The reason why this is coming out again, is that the local politicians are
trying to get him pardoned etc. The article spends alot of time talking about
the work of the politicians, etc.
Judy
Ralph Sims
> I don't think the medic in the story should have been charged, much less
> convicted, but that's the way the law stands. Changes must be made in the
> laws before the rest of us are safe from similar action.
Using emergency warning devices REQUESTS right-of-way, not demand it.
Just because statutes may allow variations from motor vehicle laws
doesn't mean that 50 miles an hour in city traffic is acceptable
practice. Looking for the 'deepest pocket' is common practice in
civil process and an emergency vehicle driver's personal auto insurance
or umbrella policy may be called on to pay settlements.
Caveat emptor.
William Dave Collins - E41
person was yeilding to the ambulance and got into an accident then it
would not be the ambulance drivers fault.
We only have six traffic lights in our county, but the one a quarter
mile down from one of our stations is a killer!
If we are responding that way and the traffic is backed up and blocking
the way most of us turn off the lights and sirens and wait for the light
change.
Even though it is said that it is not my fault, I would hate for someone
to pull out and have an accident thinking that they must move!
How about those drivers that try to out run you on the straight stretchs
with plenty of passing room only to then decide to pull over at the
blind curves!!! ARGH! ARGH!
In our county with about an average 15 minute response, 30 seconds
longer at the light won't make the difference. Heartsaver will!
These comments are mine, and only mine. I have lots more if you wish.
David
==============================================================================
Wm David Collins BSEE, EMT-Cardiac, ACLS, KC4YYX
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Code E-41, Networks Branch
Dahlgren, VA 22448
W(703) 663-7744, H(703) 775-3292
DDN mail: wco...@relay.nswc.navy.mil
==============================================================================
Gregory K Doerschler
>
>I was riding in an ambulance a few weeks ago when we came to
>a red stoplight. The three lanes ahead of use were all blocked, so one of the
I've seen this happen many times. Usually when an emergency vehicle
approaches a blocked intersection, one of three things happens:
1) Car(s) stopped at light maneuver out of the way, sometimes
entering or crossing the intersection if necessary.
2) Emergency vehicle crosses into oncoming lanes to get by stopped
traffic.
3) Emergency vehilce waits for light to change (rare).
My question is: what are the proper actions for (a) the emergency vehicle
and (b) the stopped traffic. I recall learning in driver education
classes years ago that drivers should yield to emergency vehicles. All
they ever said was pull over & let the vehicle pass; nobody said what to
do if one was stopped at a red light with ambulance behind blasting siren.
Greg
christopher.m.nelson
> "The case went to trial in September 1989. A prosecution acceident re-
> construction expert testified the ambulance was traveling 60 to 65 mph when the
> accident occurred. A defense expert placed the speed considerably lower.
>
>
> No where in the article does it state the speed limit in that area.
>
Regardless of the speed limit, an emergency vehicle should not
proceed through a red light at these speeds (assuming that the
above speed is correct). Based on what I have read on this
newsgroup about this incident, I would have a lot of trouble
supporting the driver of the ambulance.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Nelson, EMT-P
Plainfield Fire Protection District Ambulance Department
e-mail: christophe...@att.com
PJ Geraghty
>I've seen this happen many times. Usually when an emergency vehicle
>approaches a blocked intersection, one of three things happens:
> 1) Car(s) stopped at light maneuver out of the way, sometimes
> entering or crossing the intersection if necessary.
> 2) Emergency vehicle crosses into oncoming lanes to get by stopped
> traffic.
> 3) Emergency vehilce waits for light to change (rare).
>
>My question is: what are the proper actions for (a) the emergency vehicle
>and (b) the stopped traffic. I recall learning in driver education
>classes years ago that drivers should yield to emergency vehicles. All
>they ever said was pull over & let the vehicle pass; nobody said what to
>do if one was stopped at a red light with ambulance behind blasting siren.
>
> Greg
Someone (I forget who it was--sorry!) gave the suggestion that the EV should
turn off the siren and wait for the light to change. That makes sense to me.
Some of our drivers (especially when we run a MAR to DC) will drive for
BLOCKS on the wrong side of the road, with both siren (electronic and Federal
'Q') going full blast. It is extremely frightening when one is sitting in the
back of the unit, unable to see whatever the unit is about to hit!
On a similar note, one of our drivers once was responding to a call on I-270.
He saw that traffic was backed up on the entrance ramp, so he *went down the
EXIT ramp and drove on the shoulder against traffic* to get to the accident.
The driver (who survived, believe it or not) is now an assistant chief. His
EMT partner left the squad soon after.
Patrick Buick
(PJ Geraghty) writes:
>On a similar note, one of our drivers once was responding to a call on I-270.
>He saw that traffic was backed up on the entrance ramp, so he *went down the
>EXIT ramp and drove on the shoulder against traffic* to get to the accident.
>The driver (who survived, believe it or not) is now an assistant chief. His
>EMT partner left the squad soon after.
I have often thought about this problem, as we have a limited-access,
jersey-barrier'ed, high-speed road through our city. If there is an
accident, there are not enough off-ramps, and no advanced warnings (ie:
police barriers) to enable the throughfare to clear.
In many places along the road, there is no shoulder (or one not wide
enough for an ambulance to negotiate) and where there is, many times
people pull over onto it.
As you can now imagine, responding to the scene on the throughfare
in the half of the roadway where the accident occurred is basically
impossible (Unless... hmmm... I wonder if they have ever thought of
making a "BIGFOOT" ambulance... you know, the 4x4 car-crusher :-)
One could respond from the other direction, but then, you are blocking
a viable traffic lane on the opposing half of the road, you have to
climb the barrier to get to the accident (and many happen to occur on
a two-part bridge... how was your long-jump in high-school??? it's a
cold river underneath... :-) and of course, you have to bring the
patient back across.
The only option that I have identified as **POSSIBLY** viable
(read: I don't totally like it, but....) is to respond on the
shoulder of the affected portion of the road.. if traffic is
*TOTALLY* blocked by either the accident, or police, this is
not too bad, however... This does require much more coordination
and cooperation than the current system provides. It is not out
of the question, but I'm not sure why the coordination of the
system does not exist.
- Police units would be in two groups: investigation and traffic control.
- If it is in the best interests of getting emergency vehicles to the
scene (determined by the "triage" unit), traffic should be blocked and
re-directed.
- The dispatchers should be in close contact to allow the responding
emergency vehicles to be efficiently chosen and directed in their
response method.
It is a difficult situation to call. On one hand, you are taking risks
to get there, but the alternative is to not get there at all.
(PS: I have seen emergency lanes which were used only for emergency vehicles
on a throughfare, but do they stay clear when there is an actual emergency??)
(Sorry about the length....)
===========================================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT EET | (EMT: Emergency Medical Technician)
Box 1181 Stn. G | (EET: Electronics Engineering Technologist)
Calgary, Alberta |
T3A 3G3 | bu...@cpsc.UCalgary.ca
Canada | (Completing BSc in CPSC)
==========================================================================
Bob Fyfe
> JX6...@GWUVM.BITNET (PJ Geraghty) writes:
>
> Using emergency warning devices REQUESTS right-of-way, not demand it.
I am certified in the state of Ohio where this incident took place and I
also learned in my training that warning lights are a request of right-of-way.
bobb
*************************************************************************
* Bob Fyfe *
* c/o Computer Services *
* Rm. 241 Math-Scieince Building "This world is not my home... *
* Bowling Green State University ...I'm just-a passing through" *
* Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 *
*************************************************************************
* Phone: (419) 372-2103 *
* Bitnet: BFYFE@TRAPPER -or- FYFE@BGSUOPIE *
* Internet: fy...@andy.bgsu.edu -or- bf...@trapper.bgsu.edu *
*************************************************************************
David Stark
> From: JX6...@GWUVM.BITNET (PJ Geraghty)
>
> so one of the
> cars pulled out through the intersection (against the light). My driver
> blanched and swore quietly and when I asked him later what the problem was
he
> replied that if the drivier of that car had gotten into an accident it
would
> have been my driver's "fault". So we are now responsible for
> the unprovoked actions of idiot drivers.
Did your driver shut down the lights and siren until the light turned
green? This action would probably prevent any liability on his/her part if
some nitwit did crash.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!260!218!David.Stark
Internet: David...@f218.n260.z1.fidonet.org
Chris Kinsman
Our EVAP procedures require us to stay in the left lane at all possible
times. (i.e. not practical on a right turn ;) When coming to an
intersection it is preferred to enter the oncoming lane to get through the
intersection vs taking a possibly open right hand lane. There are several
reasons for this. 1. Drivers instictively pull to the right to get out of
your way. If you are on a 2 lane road in the right lane rattled drivers
may pull into you. 2. You have higher visibility in the oncoming lane
where you have the drivers looking directly at you than when you approach
them
from behind. Our procedure for going through an intersection is as
follows: Enter the intersection in the left hand lane. If this is not
possible use the oncoming lane. Slow to a stop before entering the
intersection. Once you have assured control of the intersection proceed
through the intersection pulling back into the left hand lane if you were
in the oncoming lane.
Chris
--
Chris Kinsman KINSMAN@WSUVM1
Washington State University 22487863@WSUVM1
Computing Service Center ckin...@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu
Computing Resources Laboratory 7670...@compuserve.com
mangot...@gmail.com
Mr Montecalvo made a mistake. It took me many years to forgive that mistake. He is humble and remorseful. I have met with him and his family and I am sorry that he has to live with this.
However, I think the right decision was made, because it may save lives in the long run if emergency drivers realize they will be held accountable. I don't know if anyone will ever even read this all these years later.
But as I sit here typing it has been 27 years and two days. I still miss her like crazy.
Tom Horne
--
Tom Horne
Are we really discussing a Twenty Seven year old case?
spam@localhost
>
> Are we really discussing a Twenty Seven year old case?
--
Carey Gregory
