Introduction
The hypothetical situation which is being analyzed here is taken from the ideas of responsibility and omission. The scenario given is one where Professor Swan is standing close by a railroad and sees a two-year-old on the tracks. He can easily rescue the toddler without endangering himself, but he has just had a great idea for a new article and needs to jot it down before he forgets. Eventually, a train comes along and crushes the child. There are two questions being asked. The first is whether Professor Swan caused the death of the toddler, and second, if so, should he be held liable or punishable for failing to rescue the toddler.
Summary
The first thing to look at is whether professor Swan has a legal duty to rescue the child.
…show more content…
The type of contract could be a lifeguard, a baby sitter, a ship’s captain, or a nurse. All of these contracts come with a duty to protect and save from harm.
According to the facts there was no contractual relationship.
Voluntary initiation of a saving action
There are instances when one can assume a duty voluntarily. For example, if a person is drowning and someone goes to their rescue, but stops at a time that precludes others from helping, they can be held criminally liable. It’s the prevention of anyone else to come to the rescue that is the major element.
Unless there were other people at the scene and he claimed that he would save the child and then failed to do so, this is not applicable either.
Nothing in the common law has created a criminal liability for professor Swan.
Misfeasance v nonfeasance
Liability that stems from negligence is based mostly on affirmative conduct that is unreasonable or inappropriate. This is called misfeasance and there is not a problem establishing fault and no special duty is required to establish liability. In our scenario professor Swan did not create the event that happened through any act of his own and misfeasance is not found without some kind of blamable
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
Duty may be performed without strain or reflection of desire, which means your duty, or responsibility, should be performed without hesitation. “Dutifulness could be an account of a morality with no hint of religion” (Murdoch 364). Religion’s demand for morality and being good trumps a person’s decision to
He could have turned the guilty party to the police, but he thought that it would end up hurting him.
In conclusion, Fletcher’s paradigm provides another way to look at liability. In this paradigm, he is more concerned with the case itself than if it brings social utility. Fletcher also looks at the actions and risks that both parties pose on one another and uses this to determine liability.
"Under traditional principles of criminal law the omission of ordinary care by parents, physicians and nurses creates criminal liability. The crimes committed may include murder, involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy and child abuse or neglect. Generally a person is criminally liable for homicide by omission if: 1) He has a legal duty to protect another; 2) with knowledge or gross negligence he fails to act; 3) and such failure proximately causes the death of the other.
Author's Thesis: No, individuals should not be held responsible for their action. Nevertheless they must be punished.
...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on. People are not mind readers and people should be held accountable for their own actions.
The parents’ accountability may vary for different ages. For example, an 11 year old boy shot and killed an 8 year old girl when she refused to let him see her puppy. He went inside the closet and used his father 's 12 gauge shotgun to kill her. In this case, the parents should be held accountable because this shows bad parenting. The child should not have known where the gun was kept, it should have been in a more secured place. The child’s
moral duty and obligations. Such as employee theft and fraud, dishonesty like Bernard Ebbers a
Neonatal resuscitation is intervention after a baby is born to strengthen it’s breathe or to boost its heartbeat. Approximately 10% of neonates require some assistance to begin breathing at birth, but only 1% require serious resuscitative measures. Informed consent regarding neonatal resuscitation is a constant ethical debate. This discourse ordinarily occurs between doctors and parents; parents often feel that the decision has been made for them, believing that they were not fully informed of any consequences that may occur before making their final action plan, or thinking that their opinion was not taken seriously; however, doctors see the procedure in a different light, that the parents can’t choose the best option for the child regardless of counseling, or performing as the parents wished but believing that the result could have differed if the parents had known all the effects that it will have further down the line, or convinced that they would have made a better
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
As the Santa Clara University states, “Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts.” By this means, some citizens can accept the fact that the child is suffering but many others cannot. There is not one agreement that can work it does not exist. In “Theory and Practice” by L M Bernhardt Mill uses a slogan, that is in the book of Jeremy Bentham’s, “The Greater Happiness for the Greater Number” to say, “utility is not satisfied by purely individual and selfish choices; maximizing one’s own pleasure at the expense of everyone else’s isn’t good at all. The happiness that utility is meant to promote is the general happiness of all, not the narrow pleasure of individual or small minority segment of a large population” (26). This Utilitarianism Theory is another concept that the reader can see, that can be used in the story. The happiness of many is not caused by the suffering of one
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)