The Duty to Rescue - Coursework Example

The Duty to Rescue Introduction There is nothing more rational than to help someone in distress. This ment is actually a generally accepted principle of humanity posing a moral duty. Notably, the concept of morality is relative -- what is moral for one may not be moral for the other. Needless to say, morality as a term is incapable of having exact metes and bounds. Thus, an act can be classified as moral or immoral depending on the factual evidence. There is a moral duty to help when someone is in peril to save the person from danger or death. A realization may have come across one’s mind that no other being is obliged to help a human but also a human. In such case, if the overseer does nothing to aid the distressed individual, he or she may be held liable under a law or shall have a bothered conscience. Status Quo In the United States law of torts, the general rule is that “no person has a duty to rescue another from peril” (Best and Barnes 509). It solely depends on the overseer whether to rescue the distressed person or not—at most, it is a unilateral decision. The witness can easily invoke his or her guaranteed freedom to decide not to act on the situation even if he or she could have easily lent a helping hand to save the individual from danger. Nevertheless, there are two instances wherein the duty to rescue is recognized by the United States court. The first instance is illustrated in the 1921 case of Wagner vs. International Railway, 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437—wherein the court held that when “a defendant is negligent,” he or she is “responsible for not only damages to the person injured,” but also “any damages suffered by other people trying to help”—recognizing the tortfeasor’s duty to rescue the victim (qtd. in “Torts”). On the other hand, the second instance presupposes that absent special relationship of some sort (i.e. scope of employment, parents to minor children, common carriers-patrons, spouses and etc.) no criminal liability can be imposed for failure to rescue. Utilitarianism The principle of utilitarianism is actually founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Both philosophers “believe that all actions” of each and every person in a society “must create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people” (Jackson). What is good or moral then is that which creates the greatest amount of happiness for the majority. To accomplish such aim, utilitarians deem it best to provide a form of control. Say for instance, a criminal behavior can be regulated by imposing a penalty of imprisonment or a fine to create an impression to the person that doing a prohibited act which runs contrary to the principle of morality would put him or her in a prison cell. Punishing criminals in such way can “control their actions because punishment causes pain and” it is but natural for an individual “to try to the best of his or her ability to avoid pain” (Jackson). In relation, it is contended that a unilateral act of rescuing an individual in danger can create the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In such case, to be in accord with Benthams theory, it should be made a legal duty—making one criminally liable for failure to rescue. This can effectively deter the “disregarding” tendency of some individuals and promote greater awareness to the members of the society. Kantian Ethics On the other side, to bolster the need of making the failure to rescue a crime, it is best to examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and his followers. Kant actually criticized the utilitarian principle saying that for people to act morally, they should act from duty and not based on happiness (Kant, qtd. in Abbott 14). Using happiness for him as a measure to determine whether an act is moral or not can be subjective. He argues that it is the motive of the person which makes an act right or wrong (Kant, qtd. in Abbott 2). For instance, the act of rescuing a distressed individual in line with Kantian principle can be morally right if the overseer helps the person knowingly and willfully. This means that the individual’s act is purely based on reason. It is his or her initiative or will that pushed him or her to be in aid of the person and not based on society’s expectation. Nonetheless, it is a basic principle that no person shall be punished basing on his or her will alone since ones intellect is not capable of exact determination. An overt act is needed to determine if the person in fact violated a law which warrants punishment. In connection, one could not be punished for a failure to rescue if it will be solely evaluated on the overseer’s will. Thus, for it to be a crime, the over act which is separate from the will of the individual should be properly considered. Relevant Cases There are actually three cases relevant to the adoption of a statute which would impose criminal liability on the failure to rescue. The first case is People vs. Beardsley, 150 Mich. 206, 113 N.W. 1128, decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1907. Beardsley in this case was absolved from the crime of manslaughter (Secret Helper). The court ruled that in the absence of a legal obligation to rescue, it is the moral duty of anyone to assist others when in danger. In the second case, Yania vs. Bigan, 155 A.2d 343, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that even though the defendant saw the deceased plaintiff “in a position of peril in the water, he is not legally obliged to rescue Yania unless it is shown that he placed the deceased plaintiff in the perilous position.” Another circumstance is with regard to the sad death of Kitty Genovese. The fact of the incident shows that she was repeatedly stabbed to death by the assailant in front of her apartment while her neighbors did nothing to rescue her. A careful analysis of the first two cases suggests that, the tortfeasor is only legally obliged to help the victim if the tortfeasor’s act is the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the victim and if the tortfeasor omits to do the act, he or she will be liable for damages not only to the victim but also to the other person who rescues the victim in case such other rescuer is injured. However, in criminal law, no one can be held accountable for an act which is not in fact legally sanctioned. Thus, a statute which would make the failure to rescue a crime is needed. Model Legislation The state of Minnesota actually imposes a criminal liability for a failure to rescue. This is specifically contained in its Good Samaritan Law (“604A.01, Minnesota Statutes”). In relation, it would be wise for Massachusetts to adopt such a statute. Nonetheless, few amendments should be made. The proposed statute should be stated this way, any person whether at the scene of an emergency or not who knows or eventually knows that another person is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm shall to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self and others give reasonable assistance to the exposed person. There is reasonable assistance if the rescuer obtains or attempts to obtain aid from law enforcers or medical personnel. Any person who violates this provision shall be held liable for misdemeanor. Conclusion Indeed, there is a need to pass a statute penalizing the failure to rescue under criminal law. It is apparent from the several cases decided by courts in different jurisdictions that individuals at the present time are blatantly disregarding some of their fundamental moral duties to the extent of being inhumane. To prevent this to happen in Massachusetts, its State Representatives are advised to support a proposal which would impose criminal liability for a failure to rescue. Works Cited Best, Arthur, and David Barnes. Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2007. Print. Jackson, Percila. “Jeremy Bentham and His Views on Punishment.” suite101.com. suite101.com, 16 May, 2010. Web. 15 Jul. 2010. . Kant, Immanuel. The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. USA: Forgotten Books, 1948. Print. Secret Helper. “People vs. Beardsley.” 4Lawschool.com. 4Lawschool.com, n.d. Web. 15 Jul. 2010. . “Torts.” Law School Case Briefs. The Invisible College Press, n.d. Web. 15 Jul. 2010. < http://www.invispress.com/law/torts/wagner.html>. “04A.01, Minnesota Statutes 2006.” Minnesota Office of Revisor of Statutes. Minnesota Office of Revisor of Statutes, n.d. Web. 16 Jul. 2010. . Read More