美國有見義勇為法嗎?

來源: commonsense888 2011-10-18 21:13:08 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (16371 bytes)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

按美國的習慣法/案例法 common law, 公民是沒有義務來幫助落難的陌生人的. 也無需承擔任何法律責任.除非(1) 危險是當事人造成的(2)當時人與落難人有某種特殊關係,如家長與小孩,司機與乘客,老板與員工,等

 

有些州有Good Samaritan laws,要求公民打電話報告陌生人落難的情況。但這些法律沒有被執行過。

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. However, in the United States, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

 

[edit] Common law

In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3] However, such a duty may arise in two situations:

  • A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4]
  • Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:

Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with reasonable care, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have limited or removed liability from rescuers in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuer need not endanger himself in conducting the rescue.

[edit] U.S. example

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.[23]

所有跟帖: 

如是說apathy,冷漠社會病 -子英- 給 子英 發送悄悄話 子英 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 10/19/2011 postreply 00:38:54

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”