Duty to Rescue/Report Statutes

uberVU - social comments 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by PTMaddiganEsq: wait a minute, there IS a duty to rescue ? Not what I learned in torts... http://bit.ly/3U3QA6...

Reply

Dennis N 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

No more victims: why not impose civil liability here? the victim (or victim’s estate, or victim’s insurance company) should be able to recover not only from the attackers, but also from anyone who stood by and let it happen and did nothing.

Then why should not I, as a potential rescuer, have a liability claim against the victim for negligently endangering me by being mugged?

Going to the mandated reporter case, say where you’re required to report child abuse, there is another justification for not reporting. It is the fear of doing more harm to the victim. The evils of the Children & Family Services crowd and their legion of evil foster parents is well known — even if it is not true.

When I was a Mandated Reporter, I had this discussion with other MRs. The concensus seemed to be that we would be very careful what we “saw,” and report when we were morally convinced that we would be likely to do more good than harm.

I can see the same argument for failure to respond or report other crimes. “It’s a domestic, she stays with him, It’s not all that bad, I’ll only make it worse.” The arguments are not necessarily valid, but they represent a value judgement on the part of the potential intervenor. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

No more victims 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

okay, in my mind, someone who observes someone beaten to a bloody pulp and fails to do something to stop the assault and start the process which will punish the criminals becomes, at least in a moral sense, an accomplice to the crime.

why not impose civil liability here? the victim (or victim’s estate, or victim’s insurance company) should be able to recover not only from the attackers, but also from anyone who stood by and let it happen and did nothing. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

tysonsnow 3 months, 1 week ago on Twitter

There is no common law "duty to rescue," but Volokh Conspiracy says 10 states have a statutory duty - http://bit.ly/4g9fry

Reply

TruePath 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Did anyone here read the prior post. Unintended consequences are the whole point.

My sucpiscion is that general duty to report laws end up being a slight negative and the computer hacking report requirements are especially stupid. I mean it’s basically an obligation on the victim (anyone who knows about the attack is at one end or the other and the attacker’s buddy isn’t going to rat) and I suspect encourages corporate IT people not to talk to law enforcement since they can’t possibly report every attempted hacking attempt against them.

However, I’d guess that the Vermont type duty to aid may actually be a net positive by nudging the people who might fear getting involved or the possibility of civil liability if they botched the aid. Moreover, I doubt the fear of a misdemeanor conviction for failing to give aid will have any negative consequences as it will likely be overshadowed by the individuals shame (when distant from the event the fears of getting involved seem less reasonable). ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Smooth, like a Rhapsody 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

I wonder how many states are like Indiana (not on the list) which imposes a duty to report child abuse or neglect (I.C. 31–33-5–1), not in the criminal code, but in the Juvenile Code.

Reply

Joseph Slater 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Very interesting stuff, thank for taking the time to compile and post this information.

Reply

Splunge 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Some of these statutes seem crafted to more or less compel teachers and physicians and ER staff to report sexual assaults or child abuse to the authorities.

As such, I think the logic is actually to give some kind of cover and compulsion to these folks. Not rarely, they are the first to discover evidence of a crime, and do so through establishment of a trusting confidential relationship with the victim which will be seriously threatened or ruptured by the disclosure of the information to the authorities. The practictioner or teacher may struggle with weighing the good of getting the authorities involved with the betrayal of trust involved, not to mention the personal trauma of being the complaining witness in, say, a child abuse case in your own community — perhaps even against people you know.

These kind of laws would seem to assert the legislature’s intent that the struggle be resolved in favor of reporting, and also to give psychological cover to both practitioners and victims: see, we have to report this, so if I’m breaking trust with you, it’s not my decision — I don’t have any choice! The victim’s confessing the crime in these situation may also involve violating a trust relationship (with the criminal), and the chain of compulsion — you can’t treated without complete information, and the information must be reported — may relieve him of guilt in breaking that. Yes, it sounds crazy to be worried about betraying the trust of someone who is abusing you, but that’s how people in that situation, particularly children and enabling spouses think.

Cases like these are also where the rubber really hits the road in terms of putative duties to report. It’s not really the Kitty Genovese problem, where you might argue you’ve an adult victim who, in the normal course of things, is no one’s responsibility, and where you might question whether his mere becoming a victim creates a responsibility on the part of bystanders.

It’s more like being the neighbor of the crazy in Antioch who kidnapped an 11-year-old girl and kept her captive behind his house for 18 years, while he raped her and sired two children on her. You can’t help knowing something is not quite right — the muffled cries at night bother you — but you talk yourself into not getting involved. Or you’re a kindergarten teacher, and you see a child coming to school some days looking pale and sick, with what look like bruises on his face, and he gives curious answers when you ask how he hurt himself. You know his parents quite well — they’ve been your neighbors for years, serve on the PTA board that raises a lot of money for your school, and the mother is a loan officer that helped you get your loan. So...you decide maybe he did get those bruises walking into trees. Who knows? Kids do funny things.

I don’t think people in such situations who fail to come forward are necessarily bad or unsympathetic. They may just be weak, and quail before the unquestioned harsh cost of doing so. The law may be seen as a bit of “back stiffener” for some folks, telling them it’s the great and grand wish of The People that they do so. It’s not the punishment that compels, I suggest, but the statement that the state might sanction you a hero for doing so (and demon for not doing so) that motivates.

I’m not averring this logic is sound, nor that these laws are good or bad. But I am suggesting if you want to consider the true impact of duties to report, it should be in the context of people who cannot report for themselves, and to whom it’s not unreasonable to say all adults have some kind of pre-existing role of responsibility, such as children. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Largo 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Oh, I just love that term “reasonable”.

I trust you can feel my sarcasm.

Reply

vassil_petrov 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Here is some similar articles of the Bulgarian Penal Code (this English translation is from 2005, rather old):

Art. 137. Who puts in jeopardy a person unable to protect himself for reasons of being minor, superannuated, sick, or generally, being helpless, in such a way that his life can be in danger and being aware of it he does not come to his assistance, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to three years.

Art. 138. Who deliberately does not render assistance to a person of whom he is obliged to take care and who is in danger of his life, and who is unable to protect himself for reasons of being minor, superannuated, sick, or generally, being helpless, in the cases when he could have rendered assistance, shall be punished by imprisonment of up to one year or by corrective labour.

Art. 139. (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) Who, in immediate danger for the life of somebody else, does not come to the assistance which could have been rendered without a danger for himself or for somebody else shall be punished by corrective labour for up to six months or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.

Art. 140. A driver of vehicle who, after a traffic accident in which he took part, does not render the necessary assistance to the injured person, which could have been rendered without a danger for himself or for somebody else shall be punished by imprisonment of up to one year or by corrective labour.

Art. 141. (1) (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) If a person practising medical profession, after being invited, does not come to the assistance of a sick person or of a woman in labour without a valid reason shall be punished by corrective labour or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs.

(2) If the culprit has been aware that the sick person or the woman in labour were in a dangerous state the punishment shall be imprisonment of up to one year or corrective labour.

(3) (Amend., SG 28/82; SG 10/93; amend., SG 92/02) Who, being obliged to render assistance to a sick person, does not render such assistance without valid reasons shall be punished by corrective labour for up to six months or by a fine of one hundred to three hundred levs. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Stormy Dragon 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Interesting to note that these are nearly all states seen as solidly left. The two exceptions (Ohio and Florida) are right in the middle. No right states at all.

Reply

Ricardo 3 months, 1 week ago on Wordpress

Is there any evidence that these laws work in the real world? My understanding has always been that police have the most difficulty getting information from witnesses in neighborhoods infested with gangs and drug dealers. Those potential witnesses can quite plausibly claim their lives are in danger if they so much as have a friendly conversation with a cop and are seen doing so by a gang member or a friend of a gang member. Since these laws have an exception for people in genuine fear of their lives, they may well be toothless in the majority of cases where witness reluctance to report a crime is an issue. For that matter, has the Massachusetts law requiring reporting of “hazing” done anything to mitigate frat hazing on Massachusetts campuses? I’m skeptical that these laws do much good.

In light of the civil case that Eugene blogged about a while ago — where a store-owner was held liable for triggering a silent alarm that alerted police to an armed robbery in progress that ultimately led to the shooting death of an innocent person — these laws can leave people in a tight spot. Make a snap decision and you might face a hefty civil judgment on the one hand or an arrest and possible criminal conviction on the other. ... See all content Hide content

Reply