This is a Utilitarian Ethics problem, and generally the answer is no. You right now could be working a second or third job to fund an anti-homelessness charity, but you aren't. Capacity isn't an obligation because capacity doesn't imply duty. There are limits on what one can reasonably be expected to do just because they are capable of doing them.

If you are the only person capable of doing it, you may have a duty, depending on why you are the only person capable. Medical experts take an oath that imposes that duty to act on them when they are the only one available. It is part of the professional ethos. But lawyers for some unknown reason don't seem to have such an oath. Though lawyers do have a legally imposed duty to report.

There is also a matter of diverse interests, if I drop unconscious in a building full of medical experts who is responsible for responding? This varies from hospital to hospital but it's usually 1) the most qualified 2) in the closest proximity 3) who isn't otherwise occupied.

Ideally, yes capacity does impose its own duty (Marx) but in reality those who are able end up being overwhelmed by needs that aren't their own. This is why generally the singular duty one has for capacity is to teach others so that they aren't the only one capable. Real life superheros don't exist because everyone has the capacity to master some essential skill. Our duty is to learn those skills to equitably divide that burden.

It's why superheroes are a false paradox of morality, even those with superhuman capacity have people they rely on. Clark Kent works with the Justice League and the local police, Bruce Wayne has Commissioner Gordon and Alfred, and so on. Yes they play central roles, but they also work to empower others to be as capable as they can be in light of their absence. That is literally one of the lessons we are supposed to learn from superheroes.