Talk:Duty to rescue

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tort#Terminology|tortfeasor]] The anchor (#Terminology) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

See also the Disaster management WikiProject

Seinfeld reference

The reference to Seinfeld confuses the issue because it is a fictional law. Duty to rescue bystanders does not exist in the US. Good Samaritan Law's protect people that attempt to rescue, and then bind people with a duty to rescue once they have started (see the Good Samaritan Law page). I would say it should be removed entirely.. - matthavener —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.254 (talk • contribs) 16:12, February 13, 2007

Anglo-Saxon centric

This article should be re-written as in some jurisdictions, e.g. France, there is a legal Duty to rescue, there being a charge of "failing to give aid". KTo288 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, there is in many countries the duty to render assistance if your are the master of a water-borne vessel (such as in Canada^[1]). Thus, there are more than the two duties listed herein.

References

^ [[1]]

Criminal, civil, and citations

Parts of this page are confusing, parts were just plain wrong, and none of it is cited. It needs work. Hopefully I'll find some time to research and contribute. Travisl (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempt at edits are done. I've left a lot of things uncited (but marked as such), and I'm not happy with the quality of some of my sources (also marked as such), but it's better than no citations at all. Travisl (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly assume that the statement that a person "must not risk their own life" in the Civil law section is simply a translation error (English "must not" being a common 'false friend' to the literal German translation "muss nicht"). It certainly should read "is not required to risk their own life". Malc82 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Example

The one US example of this legal concept is from an article by a philosophy professor who deliberately sought out a counterintuitive judgement from well over 100 years ago(1898). "It is easy to make judgements like these sound very counterintuitive, as I hope I just have." This example should either be removed entirely or replaced with one that more clearly illustrates the idea behind the principle. Stockberger v. U.S., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11601 (June 11), for instance, seems to be more representative of how this principle is used in law. Cygnosis (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

According with the law, it is mandatory that in every car to exist a first aid kit (there is a standard one for cars). Also to pass the teoretical test, you had to get right 22 questions out of 26; in all tests, one of the questions is about first aid or related. From what I remember, when I got my driving licence (15 years ago), drivers were required by law to stop if they saw an accident with injured people and give first aid. I am not sure if this is still the case. All I could find in our legislation valid right now is the obligation to call the emergency number (112 - the Romanian/European equivalent of the American 911) if you see an accident with injured people or an accident in which were involved vehicles carrying dangerous materials (Art.77. – (2)). For those who can read Romanian: (http://www.codulrutier.ro/codul_rutier_reguli_de_circulatie_2.php) MihaiC (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Croatia, a person that is involved in a traffic accident with injuries or fatalities is required to stay at the site of the accident (with some reasonable exceptions, of course) until authorities arrive. Bystanders are not required to stay, but they are required to help. (This is a general requirement of the Croatian Criminal Code.) This is strictly speaking not a duty to rescue (for example, if there are fatalities, but no injuries, then there's noone to rescue, but the requirement for the involved still applies), so I'm not sure if this is applicable to this subject. I'd imagine most European countries have similar laws. GregorB (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)==F[reply]

Finland

This what The Law of Finland says about the same matter.. (I am still trying to find the source page in English: http://www.pelastustoimi.fi/neuvontapalvelu/2755?keyword=auttamisvelvollisuus) (So far this is all I have found. They seem not to have the actual laws on the English section: http://www.pelastustoimi.fi/en/responsibility/)

Criminal Law:

Abandonment (21st Chapter of 14 §): A person who leaves a helpless person to such a condition that the person is obligated to take care and therefore cause treath to this person's life or health has to be committed to a fine or max 2 years in jail.

Fail to Give Aid (21st Chapter of 15 §): Person who knowing that another one is in a life or seriously health threathening danger and doesn't give or get any help to that person and has opportunity to give and when considering the nature of the situation it can be reasonable demanded, has to be committed to a fine or max 6 months in jail.

Traffic Escape (23rd Chapter of 11 §): A person of motor vehicle or a tram being in a traffic accident and fail to immediately stop their vehicle and within their capability aid the founded, has to be committed if otherwere in law there is no harder penalty given to a fine or max 1 year in jail.

Rescue Law:

28 § Everyman's Obligation to Act: Everyone who notices or learns about a fire or other accident occurred or about to happen and cannot do anything to put it out or to prevent the danger is obligated immediately to inform about it to those in danger, to do the emergency notification and to start the rescue work withing one's capabilities.

Traffic Law:

4th Chapter of 57 § Common Obligation to Give Aid: If someone is as part of a traffic accident gone to such a condition that the person is unavoidable transferre to get aid, everyone who drives a vehicle is obligated to transport the person. If the vehicle is not adequate and more adequate transport vehicle is obtainable, the person must help to obtain that transport.

Misleading intro

The intro on this page is misleading, and contradicts the page-content. The introduction claims that a duty to rescue arises in a narrow number of cases, which isn't actually true if you read the rest of the article.

Yeah, it's relatively rare in most states in USA. But the world is significantly larger than just USA.

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's different now, but still leads in *completely* ~~wrong~~ common-law centric. "concept in tort law". That is civil law. But as the article says repeatedly (and thus still contradicts itself), In many (most?) other non-common law jurisdiction, it is a criminal offence to not render assistance. (Details of course vary, but… it's not a civil matter (only)) --jae (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

It would be great if someone familiar with the situation in the UK would be able to add some information? English law is common law based so it is implied that there is no duty to rescue but perhaps such a principle has been introduced under influence from the continent. Scots law is a mixed civil/common law system so it's not clear what the situation is there. --Bjarki (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US States

"Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] 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]"

Many of the citations for states that supposedly have laws requiring bystander action reference the same article on a law in Washington State. I replaced the incorrect ones with 'citation needed' links.

This has actual language from duty to rescue statutes that contradicts the list of eight states: http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/ In EVERY statute EXCEPT Vermont, the duty is ONLY to notify or attempt to notify someone who can act. Vermont is the only statute with language that compels action. Wpjonathan (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duty to rescue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duty to warn and consequence of a failure to warn.

An employee observes on cctv the theft, start to finish, from a neighbouring business, of a van, but makes no attempt to stop the theft. The owner of the van narrowly avoids being hit by the van as it leaves the premises. The thief is injured when he returns to get his motorbike and gets hit by a car and knocked off. Neither incident would have happened if the crime itself was stopped or prevented. Is the employee liable in law? Could the employee be liable if the van owner or the thief was more severely injured? psic88 17:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Canada - "Other provinces follow common law"

I'm not terribly clear on what this means. Can a citation from the Criminal Code, etc. be provided?

Nokkromancer (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duty in Israel?

The text suggest that there is a duty to call the ambulance at least. However, the map says otherwise. So what is right? —2003:FA:8F11:45:ACCD:4E04:945F:A339 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [[1]]

[1]