Some countries in the EU such as France, have a 'Good Samaritan' law. This means that a person can be liable for failing to stop and help a complete stranger in some situations. Some people argue that we should have a 'Good Samaritan' law in Britain.
Would this increase public saftey or impose to much control over peoples' everyday lives?
The problem with good samaritan laws may be more complex than the question of whether a person should be obliged to act...and be liable for omissions...what happens when the good samaritan subsequently adds to any injury? Or indeed becomes an intervening cause? In a common law jurisdiction there could be just too much scope for attaching liability to who are now mere passers by...
ReplyDeleteMiss McGowan
I believe that a Good Samaritan law is a good idea but I dont think it would be successful. For example would it be right to be convicted for not saving the life of a child rapist who is currently on the run from the law??
ReplyDeleteChris
No we shouldnt have the good samaritan law because at the end of the day it means you have to risk your own life in order to help someone you dont know. having this law means people can cause injuries to them sleves from a situation that doesnt even concern them and also could cause more problems and maybe inflict more injuries accidently to the victim when helping them consequently meaning they become an intervening act.
ReplyDeleteLouise.
The Good Samaritan Law is a very good idea, to a degree. A person should be under an obligation to raise the alarm if they see someone in distress. However, if they have to intervene physically, then they could either endanger themselves, or the other person, in my opinion the Good Samaritan Law would have to be limited.
ReplyDeleteRyan
I think that it's already covered with common courtesy and common sense. If you see some bloke drowning in a canal, and you leave him to die, then prepare to lose a lot of sleep at night.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, a Good Samaritan law would prune out the disrespectful and uncourteous members of society, and members of society with a good consience and a good sense of common courtesy will have nothing to fear.
The only danger I can see is attempting to save a person, and failing to do so, and thus being prosecuted. But the least you can do is call for an ambulance!
Will
I think I would have to agree with Miss McGowan and Louise on this one. The 'Good Samaritan@ as a third party could break the chain of causation in some situations. Also what would happen if a child was drowning in the sea as 50 onlookers on the beach stood by? Wouldn't it be a waste of time for the courts to prosecute all 50?
ReplyDeleteWhat about if each of the 50 onlookers had a different idea about what would be the best way to 'help' in this situation?
Any suggestions?
If a child was drowning in the sea, and was surrounded by 50 onlookers on the beach, then surely it would mean that the beach was a rather popular resort, and hence under the supervision of the lifeguard? It would be on his/her head that the child died. I would think that the Good Samaritan law would only be applied if you were alone and you saw someone drowning etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think the definition of "helping" needs to come under some scrutiny; helping doesn't necessarily mean tearing off your shirt and leaping into the water in slow-mo like a wannabe baywatch; a simple raising of the alarm and calling of an ambulance would suffice just as much.
Will
william!!!
ReplyDeletesurely if there were fifty people on a beach then they should all tear off their clothes and run in!!! which one of them would be legally bound under a good samaritan law???
jack