Saving Someone About To Fall

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Balthazor]

Dairy..... sometimes I really wonder what goes n in your head. I wonder, but I think I would be to scared to look if given the opportunity.

On a side note I know in Wisconsin at least EMT's are required by law to stop and help if they see an accident.
Good samaritan laws.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Balthazor

[Groo the Wanderer]

um...Ok...I guess...but only if they also pass a law requiring marshmallows to have no bones.















Such an odd question. I tend to think the less laws passed by the govt. the better, so I would prolly say no. But then one must always remember Natural Law, which trumps everything. That said, My answer would have to be that God already ruled on that :

[chickens4life]

I think Groo is right. God already wrote that law down, as for making it a law of the state I am not so sure. it would seem to me to be a very hard to inforce sort of law. It is Mabey it is better left up to the moral fiber of people. I think the goverment just couldn't practicaly deal with this kind of a rule.
But I am not at all sure about this one, because I think in moral obligations more so than legal ones.

[homeschoolmom]

Do you stay up nights thinking of new polls for us?

[MIKolbe]

we are at the lame board...if you need a place to send this too...

[Sojourner]

Actually it's not an odd question.

There have been great legal minds who have put their minds to this very question. haha .. I just had a question about the duty to rescue on my torts exam. Here are four perspectives that were in our book, summarized in my notes.

[quote]Ames: Whether to hold someone to Good Samaritan Rule depends on whether rescuer could save without much risk to self (cost-benefit analysis). However, when peril is due to person in position to rescue’s fault, then liability should attach if no rescue is made.

Epstein: Forced rescues reduce personal autonomy because the defendant is forced to suffer some cost. It’s too hard to find a reasonable enforcement line (at what point there is no duty) so shouldn’t do it at all. There is a strict line between misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Posner: The Good Samaritan Rule doesn’t reduce autonomy – it’s like a society-wide contract to rescue each other. Everyone gets some benefit. Liability creates a mutual protective arrangement under which everyone is obliged to attempt a rescue when circumstances dictated and in exchange was entitled to the assistance of anyone who might be able to help him should he ever find himself in a position of peril. HOWEVER, in a case, Posner refused to impose liability on co-workers of a hypoglycemic employee at a federal prison for allowing him to undertake his fatal drive home. Co-workers were familiar with condition and had supplied with Ensure, making him strong enough to start the drive home. “Liability might actually reduce the number of altruistic rescues by depriving people of credit for altruism …”

Bender: Perspectives have changed since common law is male-created. Now, the costs of not rescuing are always higher because it takes into account the cost to family and friends in the cost-benefit analysis – not just the loss to the Plaintiff.[/quote]
In the first scenario, you have caused the situation, and therefore and legally bound to stop and assist in whatever way you can, within reason. The standard is, what would a reasonable person do in terms of rescue?

In the second situation, you happen upon a person in peril, and unless you carry a duty of some sort to rescue (i.e., you are an EMT or a police officer) you don't have a duty to help ... there is no legal liability. HOWEVER if you start to help, you are bound to continue with reasonable rescue efforts. You have assumed a duty of care to the person you've started to help.

[picchick]

This is an interesting poll....why are you asking?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Where do you go to law school?

Several reasons. One is I just wanted to see what you thought about obligations to others, when many say we have no obligations morally or shouldn't legally in one or both situations. I made the second poll because I also wanted to discount the people who would say the person should be saved even when there was no wrongful act, to see how many think the person should be saved purely because of the fault. A Catholic board obviously isn't representative of the US, but I wanted to see what was thought here.

Another reason, stretching the reasoning further, is to compare the issue with abortion. I have argued with prochoice people when I say to have sex is to consent to possiblity getting pregnant and holding. Yet, some insist, that even though they think it's life, the person did not explictily consent to the pregnancy, and the implied consent of the possiblity doesn't extend to holding. I thik that's wrong. And this analogy sort of follows.

Just curious.

Edited December 16, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sojourner]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1143553' date='Dec 15 2006, 11:36 PM']
Where do you go to law school?
[/quote]
University of St. Thomas, MN

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1143553' date='Dec 15 2006, 11:36 PM']
Several reasons. One is I just wanted to see what you thought about obligations to others, when many say we have no obligations morally or shouldn't legally in one or both situations. I made the second poll because I also wanted to discount the people who would say the person should be saved even when there was no wrongful act, to see how many think the person should be saved purely because of the fault. A Catholic board obviously isn't representative of the US, but I wanted to see what was thought here.
[/quote]
I guess I didn't really answer with my own opinion, but rather spouted a bunch of other people's ...

From a legal standpoint, the obligation in the two scenarios is, as I noted, different. I think it is morally just to impose a legal duty to rescue in a situation where your own actions, whether lawful or unlawful, have caused the peril. So, from both a moral and legal perspective, I think it's right to require reasonable rescue efforts in this type of case.

The second scenario is the more complex situation ... even judging by the poll results there is some discrepancy over whether a person should legally be bound to a duty to rescue in a situation that he did not cause. Here, I think that imposing a legal duty to rescue is not the proper response, although from a moral and ethical standpoint I think most people would say the correct answer would be to stop and render aid. Do you remember a few months ago there was a story about a guy who was climbing Mt. Everest and had some problem along the way, and his team, Team A, left him behind? They went on to the summit and left him to die; then Team B headed toward the summit found him on the brink of death, gave up their own summit plans, and chose to rescue the nearly-frozen climber instead.

Should the Team A have given up hope of reaching the summit in order to rescue their injured team member? Should they be legally liable for not doing so? I think yes to the first question, but I'm not sure to the second. As Posner says, imposing a legal liability in situations like this does something to the altruistic spirit ... it destroys something of personal autonomy by requiring love for fellow man as a duty rather than asking for it as a choice.

I have to say, though, that I like Bender's analysis of the cost of rescue as it takes in the interconnection of the person with his or her community ... that we have inherent value and dignity, but also that we have value to the people we interact with. It speaks to the unrepeatability of the person. Each person is immeasurably worthwhile.

So I don't know ... I am torn as to how to answer the second question (although I think that when I answered the poll I said "no").

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1143553' date='Dec 15 2006, 11:36 PM']
Another reason, stretching the reasoning further, is to compare the issue with abortion. I have argued with prochoice people when I say to have sex is to consent to possiblity getting pregnant and holding. Yet, some insist, that even though they think it's life, the person did not explictily consent to the pregnancy, and the implied consent of the possiblity doesn't extend to holding. I thik that's wrong. And this analogy sort of follows.

Just curious.
[/quote]
That is an interesting application of the duty to rescue ...