To: Lane3 who wrote (36009 ) 4/21/2014 6:16:59 PM From: J_F_Shepard Read Replies (1) | Respond to There are many conditions in many parts of the world where that callous opinion falls apart.......common law of most anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. [1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. [2] [3] However, such a duty may arise in two situations:A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril. [4] Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example: Emergency workers ( firefighters , emergency medical technicians , etc.) do not have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. DC [5] Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis , such as schools or babysitters. [6] Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons. [7] Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory. [8] In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers. [9] Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions. [10] In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California , [11] [12] Florida , [11] [13] [14] Hawaii , [11] [15] Massachusetts , [11] [16] Minnesota , [11] [17] Ohio , [11] [18] Rhode Island , [11] [19] Vermont , [11] [20] Washington , [11] [21] [22] and Wisconsin . [11] [23] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person. [1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers. [1] reasonable care , and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuer need not endanger himself in conducting the rescue.en.wikipedia.org
