3 ms·
I don't know of anywhere in the world where common law requires you to save someone in peril as a civilian
by kylecazar 2y ago
I don't know of anywhere in the world where common law requires you to save someone in peril as a civilian
- contrarian1234 2y agoIf a toddler falls in to a fountain, you can just walk away?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIf it's not your toddler and not your fountain, sure. It might even be the smart move. depending on the good Samaritan protections in your jurisdiction, you might be open to liability if you try to help.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- garaetjjte 2y agoMaybe true for common law, but definitely not everywhere. For example in Polish penal code: "Art. 162. §1. Anyone who does not provide assistance to a person in a situation threatening a direct danger of loss of life or serious damage to health, when he could provide it without exposing himself or another person to the danger of loss of life or serious damage to health, shall be subject to a penalty of imprisonment for up to 3 years."
- 0_____0 2y agoIt's obvious that this isn't universally true from a legal perspective, and certainly not universal from a personal perspective. Now, you, personally - if you were watching a toddler obviously drown in a fountain, would you walk away?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI would help, but I am generally sensitive to the legal penalties around these things. California has decent good Samaritan laws to protect people trying to help from civil liability, and some narrow situational protections from criminal liability.
- bloomingeek 2y agoThat's monster-ish.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoAgreed, but not criminal in most US states, nor bearing civil liability. >In Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co., the defendant had no obligation to save a child from crushing his hand in a manufacturing machine. The court suggested an analogy in which a baby was on the train tracks – did a person standing idly by have the obligation to save him? Legally, no. He was a “ruthless savage and a moral monster,” but legally he did not have to save that baby. https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/good-samaritan/ https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/good-samaritan/
- Xen9 2y agoThis is actually known as the Drowning Child problem, and its most important implication is that any billionaire is "extremely evil." The parent comment would still be correct though, and billionaires are just filling a power vacuum, nothing wrong about that. I genuinely believe U.S. is also just filling the power vacuum & mostly has done nothing wrong, similar to other superpowers. There's nothing inherently wrong about letting the child drown unless you are the child & can protest about your own drowning, and there's nothing wrong with filling the power vacuum, because the universe has determined that someone ought to do it sooner or later. And we cannot do anything about this. I define problem/issue/similar words in the following way: a thing that, if deemed existent by me, is also my own fault & realistically fixable by my self.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoYou are talking about peter singers drowning problem, which is a pretty separate set of concerns. I was highlighting systemic disincentives that punish potential help. For example, About 15 years ago restaurants stopped feeding the hungry and poor because they could be sued, and locking up their dumpsters due to liability.
- pestatije 2y agoi know for a fact you cannot legally drive away if you witness a car accident (in some european countries)
- zzrrt 2y agoBut is that about requiring you to give medical assistance, or just a statement to the police?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]