Generally speaking, do you support "duty to rescue" laws? These are a type of laws which you can be held liable for failing to provide reasonable assistance when you see someone in danger.
If I save your life and you decide to try and sue me because you didn't like the way I went about saving your life, I'll see to it that you end up where you would have been in the first place. Thats what idiots who sue good samaratans deserve.
"You didn't save my life! You ruined my death!"
I don't support this because I wouldn't be able to help. I'm only a child
No, I don't support these laws.
In general I support laws that hold harmless those who attempt to render aid from liability, but would never support a law requiring anyone to put themselves in harm's way to rescue another, even if on the surface they may be "qualified" to help.
I think the key word (and most problematic) is "reasonable".
It's such a slippery concept ...
If possible you should do whatever you can to help some one in that situation even if it's just calling emergency services BUT you should not be held to it by law for a number of reasons
Besides the fact that it would be completely wrong to force someone to help someone else who's in danger, nobody should be forced to put him/herself in danger.
What form of life conceived that idea?
Any decent person will have the natural instinct to help. But under no circumstance is it ok for somebody to be held legally responsible if they choose not to help.
I do not support these laws.
What if that person is an asshole?
I think this is a good question, so I up voted it.
Is that a rare event?
Not necessarily. I thought I would share it with you this time because I think this is a particularly interesting question :)
Unfortunately with all the sue happy people and greasy lawyers everywhere, helping someone could cost you everything and more. Too bad we live in such a society you have to think twice about helping someone.
We have Good Samaritan laws. You cannot be sued for helping someone.
Sadly you can get sued for anything regardless if you have followed the law or not.
I don't support it as a law, but it's still common sense to help someone in danger.
Law? No. Should people's moral conscience lead them to help? Yes. Their choice on that? Theirs alone. I choose to do whatever I can to rescue and aid.
Too much corruption. Maybe there were other factors that made it more difficult to jump in.
I'm always the first one to jump In and help because it's the right thing to do. Morals can't be legislated, they should be taught at home.
It's sad that people aren't willing to help without it being law.
It's sad some people think there needs to be a law that forces people to serve another's needs
the idea, absolutely.
the application, only with well defined parameters. these laws leave the helper open to too much risk.
Whenever I try to help somebody I'm always afraid I'm going to get sued.
This. You can't expect someone to be legally accountable to help in such a litigious society.
I hate to see people suffer but I have a family to worry about.
I think the Good Samaritan Laws take that worry away.
Okay.....so let's say you don't get sued.what if you intervene in the situation we face a bad guy of color?being tagged as a racist is not fun.
And before you say I am a racist for bringing it up I am part african-American
I don't understand the question wella
"I'm part African American so I can't be racist" Lmao
Depends what's going on. I think every scenario can be looked at, but every person is generally responsible for oneself. Personal responsibility
I oppose laws left up to interpretation. Reasonable is very loose. I also don't believe it is someone's duty to save anybody unless they were the cause of scenario. It's a nice thing to do but not enforceable.
Also, the way people are so ready to collect money if they feel they are a victim, I would assume that I am most likely not qualified to help therefor I wouldn't want to accept the liability.
No. I oppose involuntary servitude.
No. If someone is choking I would have to perform the hindlick maneuver? No way. I won't lick someone's hind end for any reason.
Give me a break.
Yes. I hate those people who will watch someone die or get horribly hurt when they could stop it.
It's essentially a catch 22 law damning you with either a fine for not assisting or a lawsuit for rendering improper aid.
Actually, Good Samaritan laws are considered a pretty well established precedent for protecting someone for providing inept assistance.
I don't disagree, but it does still occur.
It would not deter my willingness to render aid regardless.
I remember going over this in school. You're not legally required to intervene in a situation. I can't remember what the basis for this is
Most states have good samaritan laws that protect people from issues that come up when you do try to rescue someone and it goes bad. Ex; pulling someone out of a burning car but it causes more vertebrae problems in the victims neck or back.
Like on the Seinfeld series finale? Maybe, there's just too much to consider.
I do not support such laws. There are too many variables.
I don't expect someone to risk their life for mine, but if throwing me a rope will save me and you just don't want to be bothered you should be held liable.
What if you're on fire and the only thing they have is a full bladder?
Let'r rip. I'd rather be pissed on than burn to death, wouldn't you?
Yes, as long as a person is not required to put himself in any significant danger, he has a duty to save others if he finds himself in such a position.
The traditional example, given by Peter Singer, is a small child drowning in three feet of water.