of the firefighters, and the victim was rushed to the hospital, where she later died. Id. at 141. In reversing the entry of summary judgment in favor of the District, we held that “[t]he issue remains whether ... the plaintiff fairly asserted any affirmative actions by the firefighters which might create some liability.” Id. at 143. The court reasoned that there is a distinction between (1) “the adequacy and timeliness of the dispatch” of emergency services, and (2) “the quality of services physically rendered to the victim.” Id. at 142. With respect to the first of these considerations, the court held that a special duty does not arise simply because an individual requests emergency assistance. See id. at 142-43; see also Wanzer v. District of Columbia, 580 A.2d 127, 131-32 (D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>); Hines, supra, 580 A.2d at 136 (observing that
holding that onetime call for ambulance does not establish a special relationship holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school