Choice or murder?

[ThePTB]

What is the name of your state? ------ Virginia

I have a very strange question. It's just something that popped into my head. Suppose someone's life depends on your help, and you choose not to help them. Say they had a heart attack in the middle of nowhere and you were the only one that could've done anything. But for whatever reason, whether personal vendetta or a spur-of-the-moment decision, you decide to jsut leave them there and not tell anyone, knowing full well they will die.

Again, you had nothing to do with the danger or peril they were facing, but you choose not to help them and they die as a result. Can you be accused of anything?

 

[quincy]

Possibly. It depends on the state you are in, and who you are, and what the person needing assistance needs assistance for.

State laws vary but most have laws requiring certain people, by virtue of their training, to render aid. Usually these laws apply to those trained in a medical field.

Some states have laws requiring of everyone in those states that they assist another in need under certain circumstances (a duty to render aid in car accidents or boat accidents, for instance). In all states it is illegal to NOT stop and render aid if you hit someone with a car.

Some states, under their Good Samaritan Laws, impose a duty to assist in order for a person to avoid civil liability, while other states allow someone injured to recover damages from a "good samaritan" if their assistance increases the harm suffered. Most Good Samaritan Laws will provide a shield from liability, however, for injury and damages that result from assisting in an emergency situation.

So, really, it just depends.

 

[tranquility]

It gets down to what your duty is. Unless there is a special relationship, I don't think so. So, I differ a little with quincy, I don't think good samaritian laws create a duty--I think they only provide protection if you try something within your skill set. Special relationships can be parent/child (Or, other caretaking situations like uncle/nephew, babysitter/babysat etc.), lifeguard-on-duty/swimmer or other contractual relationships. Of course, once care is started, it must be continued as the duty has been created.

 

[quincy]

I disagree a little bit with you, Tranquility. Some states have laws providing penalties for failing to render aid under certain circumstances, regardless of the relationship.

In Wisconsin, for instance, there is a penalty imposed if you fail to render aid to a peace officer, and Minnesota makes it a misdemeanor to fail to provide reasonable assistance at the scene of an emergency. Vermont's (and I believe Rhode Island's) Good Samaritan law (titled Duty to Aid the Endangered Act) requires you render aid when to do so does not endanger your own life. A $100 fine is imposed for failure to act.

Most states are now considering, and some already have enacted, laws that would make it a chargeable offense for not coming to the aid of a child in danger. California, Nevada, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Texas are among those states.

It is true that most Good Samaritan Laws concentrate on civil liability issues, and immunity from liability, when assisting in an emergency, and most states continue to limit the duty to aid to those where a special relationship exists between the injured and observing party (pilot of boat to passengers in boat, mother to child, babysitter to baby, etc), but other laws in several states are being drafted, or have been enacted, to provide penalties to those who fail to act and render aid.

However, answering ThePTB's post title, it would be a rare circumstance ( ie. hit-and-run) where you could actually be charged with murder for not rendering aid.

 

[tranquility]

As to the police, I believe there is some common law theory to supply assistance on request. I don't recall the term offhand, but agree and think there are certainly some states which have codified the duty.

I also agree that there are some statutory duties created in some states. It is not the general rule, but there are some.

I add, even though neither addressed it, that there are mandatory reporters who need to "help" by reporting incidences of child abuse or other violence covered by the particular state's statute.

On the hit and run, although I don't see that in the OPs post, I think we'll both agree that if the person in question caused the danger or harm, a duty arises.

Finally, the OP is from Virginia. While I didn't know about the Vermont law, I just did a quick scan and agree with you that the law would require something. Maybe just a phone call. In one Vt. Supreme Court case, it said the person did not have the duty to intervene (in a fight). Of course the simple reading of the statute would provide this result. So it depends on the situation even with the statute. A simple lie in the OP's scenario would get out of any criminal or civil liability. But, it seems the common law is starting to change. I don't know how it will be enforced and forsee many problems, but I disagree with you a little bit less than before.

 

[seniorjudge]

Some states have laws providing penalties for failing to render aid under certain circumstances, regardless of the relationship.

Give me ONE statute that says that.

 

[tranquility]

Some states have laws providing penalties for failing to render aid under certain circumstances, regardless of the relationship.

Give me ONE statute that says that.

He did. Vermont's "Duty to Aid the Endangered Act".

 

[quincy]

Vermont's Title 12 Chapter 23 SS 519 section 5 entitled Duty to Aid the Endangered, $100 fine. (thanks, tranq!)

 

[seniorjudge]

He did. Vermont's "Duty to Aid the Endangered Act".

That is not a citation. But quincy did give me a citation. Here is what one website said:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html


Here is an example of one of the few U.S. state statutes that impose a legal obligation for a person to help a stranger:

Duty to Aid the Endangered Act, Vermont Statutes, Title 12, Chapter 23 ;SS 519:

Emergency Medical Care

(a) A person who knows 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.

(b) A person who provides reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) of this section shall not be liable in civil damages unless his actions constitute gross negligence or unless he will receive or expects to receive remuneration. Nothing contained in this subsection shall alter existing law with respect to tort liability of a practitioner of the healing arts for acts committed in the ordinary course of his practice.

(c) A person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00 -- 1967 No. 309 (adjourned session) SS 2-4 effective March 22, 1968.



I wonder if any appeals court has ruled on this?

 

[quincy]

In addition, there is Minnesota's Good Samaritan law, 604A.01 Duty to Assist, failure to assist is a petty misdemeanor, and Wisconsin's Statute 946.40, where failure to render aid to a peace officer is a Class C misdemeanor.

 

[seniorjudge]

In addition, there is Minnesota's Good Samaritan law, 604A.01 Duty to Assist, failure to assist is a petty misdemeanor, and Wisconsin's Statute 946.40, where failure to render aid to a peace officer is a Class C misdemeanor.

A person who knows 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.

Take my word for it, this sentence is a prosecutor's nightmare. I'd hate to be trying to prove all these elements.

I've underlined a "few" problem areas.

Whoever wrote that statute did a crappy job.

 

[quincy]

Actually, I understand it is the wording that is holding up statutes in other states, and also holding up a federal bill introduced which focusses on crimes against children and a corresponding duty to render aid.

A lot of states have enacted laws, in response to the Kitty Genovese murder in New York and the Sherrice Iverson murder in Nevada, to punish those who do not report violent crimes of which they have knowledge (specifically targeting sexual assaults in Florida and Massachusetts), and in Ohio there is a duty to report felonies, corpses discovered and all first-hand knowledge of deaths - but there is no duty to assist any of the victims other than by reporting the crime. New Jersey has proposed legislation where there would be a penalty of 18 months and/or $10,000 for "passive participants".

What is sad is that most other countries around the world have a duty to render aid to those in need and the laws, apparently, are effective. For most of our country, however, it remains merely a moral duty and not a legal one.

 

[tranquility]

For further discussion, see:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?55+Duke+L.+J.+1025
or,
http://www.nesl.edu/intljournal/vol6/hayden.pdf

 

[seniorjudge]

...
What is sad is that most other countries around the world have a duty to render aid to those in need and the laws, apparently, are effective. For most of our country, however, it remains merely a moral duty and not a legal one.
...

I don't call that sad.

I call that a ray of sunshine!

 

[quincy]

I assume by your "ray of sunshine" comment, seniorjudge, you mean either that it is a ray of sunshine that other countries have effective laws in place so that people have a duty to render aid, or that our country believes still that it should be a moral duty that makes people do the correct thing and not a law? On both, I agree.

I guess it would be best if, with no law in place ordering such action or no law in place penalizing any inaction, it becomes the typical moral choice for someone to throw himself on subway tracks to save the life of a stranger or for someone to charge into a burning house to rescue the stranded strangers inside or for someone to, at the very least, call 911 when a woman is heard screaming for help.

While it would be great to recognize that as the normal reaction and response to a victim's need, I am not sure a day like that will ever arrive. It will always be, I fear, the extraordinary few who cause us to gasp in amazement at their bravery and selfless concern for their fellow human being.

Hence the need for laws and (I say with some reservation ) lawyers.



Am checking out the Duke site and International Journal now, tranquility. Thanks for providing the links.