Your thoughts on 'Good Samaritan' laws?

[yllus]

Do we need a Good Samaritan law?

A brief return to Monday's column: One evening in late December, while on her way home after a long day, Doris Rosenberg entered the Bay subway station. The train pulled in. Doris, who was travelling with a friend, got off the escalator and stepped towards the open door of the subway car. Her foot found the narrow space between the train and the platform. Her leg slipped into the gap. She was suddenly trapped at the knee. Off balance. Helpless. The door about to close. The train about to pull away.

Doris, frantic, called for help. No reaction from the passengers. No reaction from the others on the platform. At the last instant her friend yanked her free. The train pulled away. Close call. Let's leave the TTC out of this for the moment.

Doris struggles with these questions now: Are we alone in the crowd? Can we depend on others to help in a crisis? Should there be a law - could there be a law - compelling others to help?

What do you think? Columnist Joe Fiorito ends the article with perhaps the scariest words you'll ever overhear in peacetime: "There oughta be a law."

IMO, this would be a dangerous first step to take down the road to legislated human behaviour. Not that we don't do that already to some extent (well not really but that's a different topic), I understand, but past a point you simply cannot legislate morality into people. Government isn't that power, nor does it have that right.

I do minimally like one aspect of Fiorito's idea - requiring witnesses to stay at the scene of a crime. Even that is rather intrusive though - if for whatever reason you simply don't wish to get involved, you shouldn't be forced to. Interesting nonetheless.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

We discussed this very issue in our criminal law class wednesday...
How would you phrase it if you did come up with such a law? And if a law existed how would you enforce it?
According to our textbook, Virginia already worded it to the following:

"A person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself, or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others."

Lets take this statute down piece by piece:
"Exposed to grave physical harm" - How can you tell if the person is in grave physical harm? Some cases arent clear.... A guy arguing with his girlfriend could strike her, but if you see them yelling on the street is it your responsibility to take care of the situation? If you hit the guy, he might press charges.

"without danger or peril to himself" - Basically this means its alright to help someone unless it puts you in danger. If a guy is getting mugged, getting in the way could possibly get you killed.

"without interference with important duties owed to others" - what kind of interference? Having to go to the grocery store to pick up some milk because your wife asked you to?

"give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others." - What constitutes as reasonable assistance? Calling 9-1-1? Yelling "Hey Stop that!"? Sometimes your assistance can make the situation worse.

Basically my underlying point is, no there shouldnt be a law. You cant word it accurately enough to convict anyone of anything. However, I think if you do see a person being attacked you should try to assist them... Its the right thing to do. Its a situation of morality.

 

[ScottyB]

No, it's human nature not to help when in a big group. If there was only a couple of people she would have been helped.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Why didn't anyone help? Jeez!

 

[Yossarian]

if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

 

[BooGiMaN]

if there was a law it would have to include a clause which prevented the person being helped/rescued from suing the person being the good samaritan.

I recall stories of people choking and someone rushing up to help them by doing the heinlech manuver and then being sued for breaking or bruising the persons ribs. Apparently the choking person never asked to be helped so they sued for medical costs and all other expenses.

 

[Anubis]

NO!

Darwinism = population control

Accidents happen, people die

Get over it

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
if there was a law it would have to include a clause which prevented the person being helped/rescued from suing the person being the good samaritan.

haha beat you to it

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

The law should not punish people for negative acts (non-acts). All of those people are called bystanders for a reason. If there are problems in this subway, which there obviously are, steps should be taken to increase security, not push the responisbility on people who do not deserve this. Having laws like this robs people of their natural rights. What if a person is injured and there is blood all over the place and they have AIDS? What if its a violent attacker, are people supposed to be reprimanded for not risking their own bodily well-being? What if while aiding the person, the helper accidently causes their death? What if the person has extreme social anxiety and simply does not have the mental fortitude to handle a situation like this?
Bad samaritan laws are a terrible idea. Sometimes moral culpability and legal action are disjointed....this is one of those times. Good samaritan laws on the other hand are a great idea, but who is going to pay for them?

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld
The law should not punish people for negative acts (non-acts). All of those people are called bystanders for a reason. If there are problems in this subway, which there obviously are, steps should be taken to increase security, not push the responisbility on people who do not deserve this. Having laws like this robs people of their natural rights. What if a person is injured and there is blood all over the place and they have AIDS? What if its a violent attacker, are people supposed to be reprimanded for not risking their own bodily well-being? What if while aiding the person, the helper accidently causes their death? What if the person has extreme social anxiety and simply does not have the mental fortitude to handle a situation like this?
Bad samaritan laws are a terrible idea. Sometimes moral culpability and legal action are disjointed....this is one of those times. Good samaritan laws on the other hand are a great idea, but who is going to pay for them?

I still think at least someone should dial 911 in such a case... anyone who doesnt help someone who's in dire need of it by at least picking up a phone to dial 3 numbers clearly doesnt have a conscience...

btw, good thread topic yllus

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld
The law should not punish people for negative acts (non-acts). All of those people are called bystanders for a reason. If there are problems in this subway, which there obviously are, steps should be taken to increase security, not push the responisbility on people who do not deserve this. Having laws like this robs people of their natural rights. What if a person is injured and there is blood all over the place and they have AIDS? What if its a violent attacker, are people supposed to be reprimanded for not risking their own bodily well-being? What if while aiding the person, the helper accidently causes their death? What if the person has extreme social anxiety and simply does not have the mental fortitude to handle a situation like this?
Bad samaritan laws are a terrible idea. Sometimes moral culpability and legal action are disjointed....this is one of those times. Good samaritan laws on the other hand are a great idea, but who is going to pay for them?

I still think at least someone should dial 911 in such a case... anyone who doesnt help someone who's in dire need of it by at least picking up a phone to dial 3 numbers clearly doesnt have a conscience...

btw, good thread topic yllus

Still doesn't mean we should have a law.

 

[Vic]

I cannot understand the concept of a crime based on something you did not do that you were not otherwise legally obliged to do.
Say you were one of the bystanders of the poor lady who almost lost her leg in the subway (and let's assume it didn't go so well for her). You just had a long day at work, you're tired, and you're listening to your mp3 player with your headphones. You don't lift your head so you don't see the woman in distress, and you can't hear her call for help with your headphones. Now minding your own business, being tired after a long day at work, and wearing headphones in public are all not crimes. But now, a person through circumstances entirely their own fault (and not yours in any way) got themselves hurt while you just happened to be nearby and you are now going to go to jail.
Where is the justice in that? There is none.
What if you tried to help and failed? You jumped in there to free the lady's leg but you just weren't fast enough and the subway pulled away. You tried, but the price of failure is it's off to jail you go...
And where would be the justice in that? Once again, there is none.

While being a good samaritan may be the right thing to do from a moral perspective, it should never be a law... not while we still claim to love freedom. While everyone should be their brother's keeper, imagine a world where we are all forced be our brother's keeper under penalty of law and punishment. You think the lawsuits are bad now, wait until all those suits become criminal trials. Imagine when everyone is watching your actions to make sure that you can't implicate them for not being a good samaritan. Hate someone? Trip and fall right in front of them... after all, they should have warned you or caught you.

I could go on. The fact that some people would even seriously consider this is proof to me that we are completely insane.

 

[Hubris]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
No, it's human nature not to help when in a big group. If there was only a couple of people she would have been helped.

First thing they teach you in an EMT course; point to a particular person and say "You! Help me!" The peer pressure of being singled out generally compels assistance, and once one person helps, more generally follow.

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

Another interesting thought:
What if criminals used this to 'bait' victims? Say someone collapses and you go to check the out in an alleyway and you are mugged and assaulted? If you have to help someone regardless of how they look or what your surroundings are, it would lead to this I wager. Thats how Ted Bundy got alot of his victims. He was pretend his arm was broken, and then try and move boxes out of his car, and then girls offered to help him, he threw them in the van and drove off.

 

[Hubris]

Originally posted by: PipBoy
if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

That IS the Good Samaritan law. If you stop to help someone, they can't sue you if something goes wrong.

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: PipBoy
if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

That IS the Good Samaritan law. If you stop to help someone, they can't sue you if something goes wrong.

A good samaritan law means that the governing body will reimburse the 'aider' monetarily for any risk or damage accrued by them. Most bad samaritan laws include a clause preventing suit against 'aiders'

 

[BooGiMaN]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
if there was a law it would have to include a clause which prevented the person being helped/rescued from suing the person being the good samaritan.

haha beat you to it

you bastard ...ill get you yet *shakes fist furiously at the evil cow*

 

[Hubris]

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: PipBoy
if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

That IS the Good Samaritan law. If you stop to help someone, they can't sue you if something goes wrong.

A good samaritan law means that the governing body will reimburse the 'aider' monetarily for any risk or damage accrued by them. Most bad samaritan laws include a clause preventing suit against 'aiders'

Ummm....no.

First link I found, as pertains to AZ (but also to others):

Question 128: Does Arizona have a good Samaritan law?

Answer: Yes. Arizona's Good Samaritan law is found at A.R.S. § 32-1471 and says:

Any health care provider licensed or certified to practice as such in this state or elsewhere, or a licensed ambulance attendant, driver or pilot as defined in § 41-1831, or any other person who renders emergency care at a public gathering or at the scene of an emergency occurrence gratuitously and in good faith shall not be liable for any civil or other damages as the result of any act or omission by such person rendering the emergency care, or as the result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured persons, unless such person, while rendering such emergency care, is guilty of gross negligence.

Better Link

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: PipBoy
if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

That IS the Good Samaritan law. If you stop to help someone, they can't sue you if something goes wrong.

A good samaritan law means that the governing body will reimburse the 'aider' monetarily for any risk or damage accrued by them. Most bad samaritan laws include a clause preventing suit against 'aiders'

Ummm....no.

First link I found, as pertains to AZ (but also to others):

Question 128: Does Arizona have a good Samaritan law?

Answer: Yes. Arizona's Good Samaritan law is found at A.R.S. § 32-1471 and says:

Any health care provider licensed or certified to practice as such in this state or elsewhere, or a licensed ambulance attendant, driver or pilot as defined in § 41-1831, or any other person who renders emergency care at a public gathering or at the scene of an emergency occurrence gratuitously and in good faith shall not be liable for any civil or other damages as the result of any act or omission by such person rendering the emergency care, or as the result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured persons, unless such person, while rendering such emergency care, is guilty of gross negligence.

Better Link

I didn't realize legislatures minced words as well. Arizona didn't label their law properly. If thats a good samaritan law, then what would the one that I described be called?

 

[ViperXX]

Unless your a sheep you should always help those in dire need.

F@ck the laws you are a human being.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3

Originally posted by: JimmyEatWorld
The law should not punish people for negative acts (non-acts). All of those people are called bystanders for a reason. If there are problems in this subway, which there obviously are, steps should be taken to increase security, not push the responisbility on people who do not deserve this. Having laws like this robs people of their natural rights. What if a person is injured and there is blood all over the place and they have AIDS? What if its a violent attacker, are people supposed to be reprimanded for not risking their own bodily well-being? What if while aiding the person, the helper accidently causes their death? What if the person has extreme social anxiety and simply does not have the mental fortitude to handle a situation like this?
Bad samaritan laws are a terrible idea. Sometimes moral culpability and legal action are disjointed....this is one of those times. Good samaritan laws on the other hand are a great idea, but who is going to pay for them?

I still think at least someone should dial 911 in such a case... anyone who doesnt help someone who's in dire need of it by at least picking up a phone to dial 3 numbers clearly doesnt have a conscience...

btw, good thread topic yllus

Still doesn't mean we should have a law.

I agree... if you read my first response to this thread, you would see that...

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: PipBoy
if you're gonna pass a law like that, you have to have some kind of condition where the helpee (or his family) can't sue the helper if something goes wrong.

That IS the Good Samaritan law. If you stop to help someone, they can't sue you if something goes wrong.

well that's a good thing I guess. as you can see I did not care enough to do any research. that would be like work.

 

[axelfox]

I think if you are a certain type of professional (doctor, policeman), then you have an obligation under the law (or under oath) to help. Otherwise, there is no law.

 

Originally posted by: axelfox
I think if you are a certain type of professional (doctor, policeman), then you have an obligation under the law (or under oath) to help. Otherwise, there is no law.

that all depends. Most states do not have a requirement of you HAVING to act if you are off duty. If you are on duty, all states have a "duty to act" clause, and if you do not help, you can and probably will be charged with neglagence.