Talk:Duty to rescue

message: This article should be re-written as in some jurisdictions, e.g. France, there is a legal Duty to rescue, there being a charge of "failing to give aid". KTo288 (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglo-Saxon centric

message: Parts of this page are confusing, parts were just plain wrong, and none of it is cited. It needs work. Hopefully I'll find some time to research and contribute. Travisl (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My first attempt at edits are done. I've left a lot of things uncited (but marked as such), and I'm not happy with the quality of some of my sources (also marked as such), but it's better than no citations at all. Travisl (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly assume that the statement that a person "must not risk their own life" in the Civil law section is simply a translation error (English "must not" being a common 'false friend' to the literal German translation "muss nicht"). It certainly should read "is not required to risk their own life". Malc82 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal, civil, and citations

message: The one US example of this legal concept is from an article by a philosophy professor who deliberately sought out a counterintuitive judgement from well over 100 years ago(1898).  "It is easy to make judgements like these sound very counterintuitive, as I hope I just have."  This example should either be removed entirely or replaced with one that more clearly illustrates the idea behind the principle.  Stockberger v. U.S., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11601 (June 11), for instance, seems to be more representative of how this principle is used in law. Cygnosis (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: US Example

message: According with the law, it is mandatory that in every car to exist a first aid kit (there is a standard one for cars). Also to pass the teoretical test, you had to get right 22 questions out of 26; in all tests, one of the questions is about first aid or related. From what I remember, when I got my driving licence (15 years ago), drivers were required by law to stop if they saw an accident with injured people and give first aid. I am not sure if this is still the case. All I could find in our legislation valid right now is the obligation to call the emergency number (112 - the Romanian/European equivalent of the American 911) if you see an accident with injured people or an accident in which were involved vehicles carrying dangerous materials (Art.77. – (2)). For those who can read Romanian: (http://www.codulrutier.ro/codul_rutier_reguli_de_circulatie_2.php) MihaiC (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Croatia, a person that is involved in a traffic accident with injuries or fatalities is required to stay at the site of the accident (with some reasonable exceptions, of course) until authorities arrive. Bystanders are not required to stay, but they are required to help. (This is a general requirement of the Croatian Criminal Code.) This is strictly speaking not a duty to rescue (for example, if there are fatalities, but no injuries, then there's noone to rescue, but the requirement for the involved still applies), so I'm not sure if this is applicable to this subject. I'd imagine most European countries have similar laws. GregorB (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Romania

message: The intro on this page is misleading, and contradicts the page-content. The introduction claims that a duty to rescue arises in a narrow number of cases, which isn't actually true if you read the rest of the article.
Yeah, it's relatively rare in most states in USA. But the world is significantly larger than just USA.
--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's different now, but still leads in *completely* wrong common-law centric.  "concept in tort law".  That is civil law.  But as the article says repeatedly (and thus still contradicts itself), In many (most?) other non-common law jurisdiction, it is a criminal offence to not render assistance.  (Details of course vary, but… it's not a civil matter (only))  --jae (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading intro 

message: It would be great if someone familiar with the situation in the UK would be able to add some information? English law is common law based so it is implied that there is no duty to rescue but perhaps such a principle has been introduced under influence from the continent. Scots law is a mixed civil/common law system so it's not clear what the situation is there. --Bjarki (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: "Contrary to common law, eight states have laws requiring people to help strangers in peril: Florida,[10] Massachusetts,[11] Minnesota,[11] Ohio,[statute verification needed] Rhode Island,[11] Vermont,[11] Washington,[11] and Wisconsin.[statute verification needed] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]"
Many of the citations for states that supposedly have laws requiring bystander action reference the same article on a law in Washington State. I replaced the incorrect ones with 'citation needed' links.
This has actual language from duty to rescue statutes that contradicts the list of eight states: http://volokh.com/2009/11/03/duty-to-rescuereport-statutes/
In EVERY statute EXCEPT Vermont, the duty is ONLY to notify or attempt to notify someone who can act. Vermont is the only statute with language that compels action.
Wpjonathan (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US States 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Duty to rescue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121211145958/http://law.missouri.edu/peters/t2syllabus.html to http://law.missouri.edu/peters/t2syllabus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430075255/http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=67&newsType=1 to http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=67&newsType=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An employee observes on cctv the theft, start to finish, from a neighbouring business, of a van, but makes no attempt to stop the theft.
The owner of the van narrowly avoids being hit by the van as it leaves the premises.
The thief is injured when he returns to get his motorbike and gets hit by a car and knocked off.
Neither incident would have happened if the crime itself was stopped or prevented.
Is the employee liable in law?
Could the employee be liable if the van owner or the thief was more severely injured? psic88 17:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duty to warn and consequence of a failure to warn. 

message: I'm not terribly clear on what this means. Can a citation from the Criminal Code, etc. be provided?
Nokkromancer (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada - "Other provinces follow common law" 

message: The text suggest that there is a duty to call the ambulance at least. However, the map says otherwise. So what is right? —2003:FA:8F11:45:ACCD:4E04:945F:A339 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duty in Israel?