A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law and criminal law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party who could face potential injury or death without being rescued. The exact extent of the duty varies greatly between different jurisdictions. In common law systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions and awarded civil penalties, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue even where law does not punish failure to rescue.
In the common law of most English-speaking 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:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[5]
Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with 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 rescuers need not endanger themselves in conducting the rescue.
Civil law system
Many civil law systems, which are common in Continental Europe, Latin America and much of Africa, impose a far more extensive duty to rescue.[3] The duty is usually limited to doing what is "reasonable". In particular, a helper does not have to substantially endanger themselves.[23]
This can mean that anyone who finds someone in need of medical help must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care and render best-effort first aid. Commonly, the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in a hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials. [citation needed]
Argentina has legislation on "abandonment of persons", Articles 106–108 of the Argentine Penal Code, which includes the provision in Article 106 that "a person who endangers the life or health of another, either by putting a person in jeopardy or abandoning to their fate a person unable to cope alone who must be cared for ... will be imprisoned for between 2 and 6 years" [emphasis added].[37]
Belgium
In Belgium, the obligation to provide assistance was introduced by the law of January 6, 1961.
Failure to provide assistance is punishable under article 422bis of the Penal Code.
The conditions of the duty to help relate to two main points:
knowledge of a hazard;
the possibility of helping without putting oneself in physical danger.
Non-assistance is punished by up to one year in prison.[38]
Brazil
In Brazil, the Article 135 ("Omission of rescue") of the Brazilian Penal Code states that: One who fails to provide medical assistance to an abandoned child (or lost) or invalid person (or harmed) who is in peril and no harm is present to himself (or herself), or does not call the public authority for help will be either imprisoned for a period ranging from one to six months or fined. The sentence is increased in half if the failure for help results in great personal injury and tripled if it results in death.
Canada
In Quebec, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its Charter of Rights: "Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance...Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason."[39]Criminal law in Canada is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so failure to comply with an article of the Charter in Quebec does not constitute a criminal offence except if by doing so a party also violates the Criminal Code.
Other provinces follow common law.
In Canadian air law, it is mandatory to make oneself and one's aircraft available to aid search-and-rescue efforts if the aircraft is in the immediate area and a distress signal is received. [citation needed]
Czechia
As per Czech Criminal Code, all persons must provide assistance to anyone who is in risk of death or appears to be lifeless or shows signs of a major health condition or other serious illness, unless providing it would put the assisting person or other persons in harm's way (§ 150).
Drivers of vehicles involved in traffic accidents are obliged to provide aid to other parties involved, unless assisting would pose an imminent danger to them or other persons under § 151.
Violations are punishable by up to 2 years (§ 150, par. 1), 3 years if the convicted is expected, by the nature of their job (even when off duty), to save the life of another (§ 150, par. 2) or 5 years (§ 151). Depending on the circumstances, a driving ban or a prohibiton of activity (meaning an individual is banned from working respective jobs) are an adequate alternative to imprisonment.[40]
Denmark
Under the Danish penal code, all persons must provide aid to the best of their ability to any person who appears to be lifeless or in mortal danger (§ 253), must alert authorities or take similar steps to prevent impending disasters that could cause loss of life (§ 185), must comply with all reasonable requests of assistance by a public authority when a person's life, health or well-being is at stake (§ 142), and must, if they learn of a planned crime against the state, human life or well-being, or significant public goods, do everything in their power to prevent or mitigate the crime, including but not limited to reporting it to authorities (§ 141), in all cases provided that acting would not incur particular danger or personal sacrifice.
Violations are punishable by up to three months (§ 142), two years (§ 185 and § 253) or three years (§ 141) in prison.[41] Before 2004, the maximum penalty for § 185 and § 253 was only 4 and 3 months, respectively.[42]
Outside hit-and-run incidents, § 253 is used only rarely, though a notable 2014 case saw a woman sentenced to a year in prison for abandoning another woman; the abandoned woman had become stuck in a bog and eventually died from exposure.[43]
France
Anyone who fails to render assistance to a person in danger will be found liable before French Courts (civil and criminal liability). The penalty for this offence in criminal courts is imprisonment and a fine (under article 223–6 of the Criminal Code) while in civil courts judges will order payment of pecuniary compensation to the victims.[44]
The photographers at the scene of the fatal car collision of Diana, Princess of Wales, were investigated for violation of the French law of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (failing to provide assistance to a person in danger), which can be punished by up to five years of imprisonment and a fine of up to €75,000.
Germany
In Germany, unterlassene Hilfeleistung (failure to provide assistance) is a crime under section 323(c)[45] of the German Criminal Code: any person is obligated to provide assistance in case of an accident or general danger if necessary, and is normally immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith and following the reasonable person's (aka ordinary prudent person's) understanding of required measures turns out to be harmful.[46][47] Moreover, any individual who hinders a person who is providing or willing to provide assistance to another person in need can also be punished under the same section. Also, the rescuer or responder may not be held liable if the action they should take in order to help is unacceptable for them and they are unable to act (for example when unable to act at the sight of blood). In Germany, knowledge of basic emergency measures and certified attendance of a first aid and CPR course are prerequisites for being granted a driving license.
Greece
In Greece, a citizen is required by law to provide help to anyone who asks for it in case of a tragedy or public danger, as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. According to article 288 of the criminal code, not providing help in those cases can impose a prison sentence of up to 6 months.
Israel
In 1998, Israel enacted the "Stand-not-idly-by-thy-neighbor's-blood Law", taking its name from Leviticus 19:16. It requires one to render assistance whenever one is in the presence of a person who, due to some sudden occurrence, is in severe and immediate danger to life, limb or health, provided that one can do so without placing oneself or a third party in danger. Notifying the authorities (e.g. the police or fire department, as relevant) or calling on others who can render assistance for aid is considered "rendering assistance" under the law. A person obliged to render assistance who fails to do so can be fined.
Japan
In Japan, Article 19 (1) of the Medical Practitioners' act asserts that "No medical practitioner who engages in medical practice may refuse any request for medical examination or treatment without legitimate grounds."[48]
However duty to rescue laws are generally limited to health professionals, other citizens are subject to laws closer to the "good samaritan model."
Netherlands
According to Article 450 of Dutch criminal law: "He who, being a witness to the instantaneous mortal danger of another, fails to provide or procure such help which he can provide or procure without reasonably needing to fear danger to himself or others, will, if the death of the person in need of help occurs, be punished with imprisonment of up to three months or a second category fine."[33]
Norway
In Norway, Section 287 of the Penal Code[49] states that "A penalty of a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months shall be applied to any person who fails to provide assistance to the best of his/her ability to a person at obvious risk of losing his/her life or suffering considerable harm to his/her body or health". This is applicable as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally.
Poland
In Poland, Article 162 of the criminal code states that whoever does not render aid to a person in a situation posing an imminent danger of death or serious injury to health, and is able to do so without exposing himself or another person to a danger of loss of life or serious injury to health, shall be subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 3 years.
A person who fails to render assistance for which it is necessary to undergo a medical procedure, or in circumstances in which immediate assistance from an institution or a person appointed for that purpose is possible, shall not commit an offence.[50]
Russia
In Russia, Article 125 of the criminal code prohibits knowingly abandoning people who are in life- or health-threatening situations when said people cannot help themselves.[51] However it binds only those who are either legally obligated to care for said people or who themselves have put said people into life or health threatening situation.
Serbia
In Serbia, a citizen is required by law to provide help to anyone in need (after for example a major car accident) as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. Serbian criminal code Articles 126 and 127 state that should one abandon a helpless person and/or not provide aid to a person in need, one could receive a prison sentence of up to one year. If the person dies of injuries due to no aid having been provided by the bystander, a sentence up to 8 years in prison can be imposed.
Spain
In Spain, a citizen is required by law to provide or seek help to anyone in need as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. Not doing so is a criminal offence under Article 195 of the Spanish Criminal Code.[52]
Tunisia
In Tunisia, it is regulated by Article 143 of the Tunisian Criminal Code of 1913, modified by the ordinance dated July 9, 1942, relating to the lack of 'legal' assistance (Duty of Rescue). According to the mentioned article, the deliberate failure to assist a person in a dangerous situation (such as injury, fire, or a doctor refusing to provide care) is considered a criminal offense and is punishable by law.
Vietnam
In Vietnam, under Article 132 of the Vietnamese penal code, anyone who sees that another person is in a life-threatening situation, but fail to help them despite being capable of doing so, resulting in their death, shall be subject to warning, non-custodial reform for up to 2 years, or imprisonment from 3 months to 2 years. Offenders can be sentenced to between 1 and 5 years of imprisonment if that person created the dangerous situation or if that person is legally or professionally obligated to help. The penalty rises to 3 to 7 years' imprisonment if two or more people die as a result of the offender's inaction. Offenders may also be banned from holding certain posts, practicing certain professions or doing certain jobs for between 1 and 5 years. [53]
Ethical justifications
Legal requirements for a duty to rescue do not pertain in all nations, states, or localities. However, a moral or ethical duty to rescue may exist even where there is no legal duty to rescue. There are a number of potential justifications for such a duty.
One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress.
These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why philosopherPeter Singer suggests that if one saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, they should do so, if the cost is moderate to themselves. Damage to their clothing or shoes or how late it might make them for a meeting would be insufficient excuse to avoid assistance. Singer goes on to say that one should also attempt to rescue distant strangers, not just nearby children, because globalization has made it possible to do so.[54]
Specific arguments for such a duty to rescue include, but are not limited to:
The Golden Rule: treat others as one would wish to be treated. This assumes that all persons would wish to be rescued if they were in distress, and so they should in turn rescue those in distress to the best of their abilities. What counts as distress requiring rescue may, of course, differ from person to person, but being trapped or at risk of drowning are emergency situations which this position assumes all humans would wish to be rescued from.
Utilitarianism: utilitarianism posits that those actions are right which best maximize happiness and reduce suffering ("maximize the good").[55] Utilitarian reasoning generally supports acts of rescue which contribute to overall happiness and reduced suffering. Rule utilitarianism would look not just at whether individual acts of rescue maximize the good, but whether certain types of acts do so. It then becomes one's duty to perform those types of actions. Generally, having strangers rescue those in distress maximizes good so long as the rescue attempt does not make things worse, so one has a duty to rescue to the best of her or his ability as long as doing so will not make things worse.
Humanity: the rules of humanity advise that the essence of morality and right behavior is tending to human relationships. Therefore, virtues (desirable character traits) such as compassion, sympathy, honesty, and fidelity are to be admired and developed.[56] Acting out of compassion and sympathy will often require rescue where someone is in need. Indeed, it would not be compassionate to ignore someone's need, though the way one fulfills that need may vary. In cases of emergency, rescue would be the most compassionate act compared with allowing a person to remain trapped in rubble.
There are also ethical justifications for role-specific or skill-specific duties of rescue such as those described above under the discussion of U.S. Common Law. Generally, these justifications are rooted in the idea that the best rescues, the most effective rescues, are done by those with special skills. Such persons, when available to rescue, are thus even more required to do so ethically than regular persons who might simply make things worse (for a utilitarian, rescue by a skilled professional in a relevant field would maximize the good even better than rescue by a regular stranger). This particular ethical argument makes sense when considering the ability firefighters to get both themselves and victims safely out of a burning building, or of health care personnel such as physicians, nurses, physician's assistants, and EMTs to provide medical rescue.[57]
These are some of the ethical justifications for a duty to rescue, and they may hold true for both regular citizens and skilled professionals even in the absence of legal requirements to render aid.
Case law
United States
In an 1898 case, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. 1898), the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.[58]
In the 1907 case People v. Beardsley, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns, passed out after overdosing on morphine. Rather than seek medical attention, Beardsley instead had a friend hide her in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of manslaughter for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Michigan saying that Beardsley had no legal obligation to her.
Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not.[59]
Germany
In 2016, an 83-year-old man collapsed in a bank lobby in Essen and later died. Several customers stepped over him without providing assistance. With the help of security camera footage, these customers were identified and sentenced to fines of several thousand euros each for failing to provide assistance. A customer who phoned emergency services was not indicted, as he was considered to have provided sufficient assistance.[60]
People v. Beardsley– Case that illustrates the parameters around the legal necessity of a duty to act
Rescue doctrine– in U.S. tort law, the principle that a tortfeasor who places the tort victim in danger is liable for any harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim, in addition to the harm to the victimPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
The Finale (Seinfeld): the series finale of the American sitcomSeinfeld depicts the trial of the four main characters of the series for their violation of a duty to rescue (incorrectly called "Good Samaritan law" in the show)
Related Research Articles
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.
Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance. This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or whom they believe to be injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated. The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a Good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment. By contrast, a duty to rescue law requires people to offer assistance and holds those who fail to do so liable.
A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.
In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.
An accessory is a person who assists, but does not actually participate, in the commission of a crime. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.
Suicide is a crime in some parts of the world. However, while suicide has been decriminalized in many countries, the act is almost universally stigmatized and discouraged. In some contexts, suicide could be utilized as an extreme expression of liberty, as is exemplified by its usage as an expression of devout dissent towards perceived tyranny or injustice which occurred occasionally in cultures such as ancient Rome, medieval Japan, or today's Tibet Autonomous Region.
Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.
In North America, the legal age of consent relating to sexual activity varies by jurisdiction.
The age of consent in Africa for sexual activity varies by jurisdiction across the continent, codified in laws which may also stipulate the specific activities that are permitted or the gender of participants for different ages. Other variables may exist, such as close-in-age exemptions.
The omissions of individuals are generally not criminalised in English criminal law, save in many instances of a taking on of a duty of care, having contractual responsibility or clearly negligent creation of a hazard. Many comparator jurisdictions put a general statutory duty on strangers to rescue – this is not so in English law. Defenders and reasoners of the position regard it as wrong for the criminal law to punish people in many circumstances for committing no physical act, which it is argued would be an infringement on human autonomy. Academics arguing for reform argue that a social responsibility to assist others should exist, particularly where there would be no danger to the rescuer.
The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution.
In traffic laws, a hit and run or a hit-and-run is the criminal act of causing a traffic collision and not stopping afterwards. It is considered a supplemental crime in most jurisdictions.
Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.
English law contains homicide offences – those acts involving the death of another person. For a crime to be considered homicide, it must take place after the victim's legally recognised birth, and before their legal death. There is also the usually uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "King's peace". The death must be causally linked to the actions of the defendant. Since the abolition of the year and a day rule, there is no maximum time period between any act being committed and the victim's death, so long as the former caused the latter.
Refusing to assist a police officer, peace officer or other law enforcement officer is an offence in various jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions use the terminology '"refusing to aid a police officer" or "failure to aid a police officer".
↑ See Yania v. Bigan 155 A.2d 343 (Penn. 1959). Bigan and Yania were strip miningcoal. Bigan was working next to an 18' deep pit with water in it. He asked Yania and Ross to help him with a pump. Bigan and Ross told Yania to jump over the pit. He did, fell in, and drowned. Yania's widow had argued that Bigan and Ross had a legal obligation to assist Yania to prevent his drowning. However, the Appellate Court found that the law imposes no duty to rescue.Archived 2016-03-03 at the Wayback Machine
As a general rule, our common law imposes no duty to prevent a third person from causing physical injury to another... Additionally, under the public duty doctrine, the State is not liable for its negligent conduct even where a duty does exist unless the duty was owed to the injured person and not merely the public in general... However, this court recognizes an exception to both these general rules. [A] duty arises where 'a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct.' [Therefore,] we have adopted one class of these 'special relation' cases as described in section 319: "One who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should know to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control the third person to prevent him from doing such harm."
(links added, citations removed)
↑ See, e.g., De Vera v. Long Beach Public Transportation Co. 180 Cal. App. 3d 782, 225 Cal. Rptr. 789.
↑ Argentine Penal Code laws regarding crimes against the person(in Spanish) Original of text translated in the article: "el que pusiere en peligro la vida o la salud de otro, sea colocándolo en situación de desamparo, sea abandonando a su suerte a una persona incapaz de valerse y a la que deba mantener o cuidar o a la que el mismo autor haya incapacitado, será reprimido con prisión de 2 a 6 años".
↑ Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie"", fascicule n° 3 de décembre 1961.
↑ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism available from many publishers and on-line, first published in 1863.
↑ page 19-20 in Tom L. Beauchamp, LeRoy Walters, Jeffrey P. Kahn, and Anna C. Mastroianni, Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 7th edition, Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 2008.
↑ Kevin Williams, "Medical Samaritans: Is There A Duty To Treat?", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21(3): 393–413. 2001. Williams argues that medical personnel have a duty of medical rescue even when there is no prior patient-provider relationship, as when a provider happens to pass an accident site with no EMTs to hand.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
