YOU be the Judge
The following is one of the hardest cases I have ever read. Indeed it's one of the hardest cases in the history of Torts jurisprudence. It's not complicated, but it's a toughie. I need your collective brain powers to help me out.
Let's say you are Judge Blogreader and this case appears before you:
Harry was walking across a bridge and accidentally slipped and fell into the water. Poor Harry couldn't swim and thrashed about wildly in the river, and seemed like he would drown if he didn't get help.
Leonardo was on the bridge at the time Harry fell and could see that Harry's life was in danger. There was a rope tied to the bridge that could be thrown down to someone in the river so that they could grab a hold of it and save themselves.
Leonardo, for whatever reason, decided not to throw that rope down to Harry. He just stood there and watched Harry drown.
Harry's wife sues Leonardo for not helping Harry by at least throwing down the rope.
Do you think Harry's wife should win? Why or why not?
Let's say you are Judge Blogreader and this case appears before you:
Harry was walking across a bridge and accidentally slipped and fell into the water. Poor Harry couldn't swim and thrashed about wildly in the river, and seemed like he would drown if he didn't get help.Leonardo was on the bridge at the time Harry fell and could see that Harry's life was in danger. There was a rope tied to the bridge that could be thrown down to someone in the river so that they could grab a hold of it and save themselves.
Leonardo, for whatever reason, decided not to throw that rope down to Harry. He just stood there and watched Harry drown.
Harry's wife sues Leonardo for not helping Harry by at least throwing down the rope.
Do you think Harry's wife should win? Why or why not?
posted by Alice in Wonderland at 10:45 AM
12 Comments:
Ouch. You don't think that's a bit harsh? All the guy had to do was throw down the rope...
Maybe Leo knows Harry and doesn't like him for being a sheisty individual or what have you. In any case, Leo doesn't owe Harry anything, much less owe his wife anything. This society is too misanthropic for this Good Samaritan BS.
If Leo was wrong, karma or God will kick him in the ass anyway. And anyway, if I were Harry's wife I'd seek vigilante justice against Harry NOT money. Suing for money just seems greedy.
-Tammy
Well, you both are right, insofar as our legal system goes. There is no duty to help other people (of course you already knew that Tammy).
But is that the way things really should be? Leo was being a total ass by letting Harry drown. Don't we want to live in a society where people aren't so depraved as to not even flick a finger to save a drowning man (however sheisty he may be)? Shouldn't the law restrain that kind of evil (of omission and callous disregard of human life)?
What does society sacrifice by requiring that lowest-level of decency? What would be the harm that so greatly outweighs making Leo liable for his crappy non-behavior?
ha ha...Peggy, we posted at the same time! Great minds think alike...on some issues...
You are absolutely right in questioning the viability of such a duty. First there is the sliding scale problem...how much inconvenience does Joe Schmo have to bear? And secondly the problem of scope...how many people are you gonna sue who just drive on by a car accident?
But let's assume there are ways around those mechanistic questions of feasability. One could imagine that the law could specify the relative degree of inconvenience and define the scope of liability and include the element of knowledge and intent (so we can be sure that Joe Schmo isn't being sued for being mentally incompetent).
As a fundamental principle (mechanisms aside, without extrapolating to other possible cases), should the law make people liable for this extreme scenario of not saving a life when it would cost you nothing?
Narrowing the question down like this, we can see then that the Bible's good samaritan is not relevant or analogous. That guy risked his life to save another at great cost to himself. Certainly that's not what Leo had to do.
One time I went camping. Everyone was sitting around the campfire and one guy was asleep, when an ember from the fire plopped into his shoe and started eating away at his sneaker tongue. And I saw this whole thing. I wasn't even thinking about it; I was completely entranced watching the burning ember burn through his shoe. Of course, he woke up because the ember eventually ate through his sock and reached his foot. I didn't mean anything by it. It was just like watching a movie. So I guess what I'm saying is that brain farts are very real. (Boy that little story doesn't make me look real good.)
Sorry this is getting long, but in my crim pro class we were discussing how the price for living with so much freedom is that we can't actively prevent people from doing bad things to other people, much less passively let bad things happen to other people. The bottom line is that I just don't think the government should be the one imposing those kind of duties. Either society should be evolved enough to value helping others, or we resort to vigilante justice to fill in the gaps.
-Tammy
I'd like to think that a good law is one that makes it less costly for anyone to do good, and more costly for anyone to do evil. In this case, there would already likely be much reward to Leo for rescuing Harry, and also much ignominy for failing to, so a law would be superfluous.
Wow, I'm surprised at the resounding general consensus among y'all.
I can't say that I take a settled position myself(afterall, the chief reason I posted this was because I didn't know which side to fall on).
Of course I can see that punishing Leo for his stupdity/depravity raises hairy implications for future people and cases...but I just can't get over what an asshole he was.
Suppose there was conclusive evidence that Leo knew exactly what he was doing, just standing there. Let's say it was a matter of many minutes, not seconds. He saw the rope, contemplated the saving, and just decided not to. (And unlike you Tammy, someone would die from his inaction, not merely get some crispy skin...that's quite a "campfire" story).
That's just plain wrong. Of course legal and moral obligation are not synonymous, but when something is especially morally heinous (murder, rape, gross negligence), the law covers it.
IF...it's possible to show that Leo knew exactly what was going on, you don't think he should be liable?
Will -- Apparently there wasn't enough deterrance for "doing" wrong since it didn't prevent Leo from doing wrong (i.e. not doing right).
I suppose, when all is said, we all have a strong aversion to having affirmative duties. And there is probably a stronger common moral intuition towards liberty and inculpability than towards saving others, even at no cost to ourselves.
One last thought...
Our collective aversion to affirmative duties probably makes us horrified to know that there are actually many affirmative duties placed on us, but only due to special relationships and land ownership.
For example, parent-child, teacher-student, homeless shelter-homeless person, and yes, even property owner to trespassers!
But we don't dare say that, even in the most extreme cases, that we are our brother's keeper.
There is no need to outlaw murder most of the time, between most people. The law is for those that are especially hated, and those that are likely to act out. This occurs often enough in the course of human society that the law is of some use.
If, however, there were a law of affirmative duty that could save Harry, then the law would be useful only when the one that was especially hated was flailing about in a river, and the one that hated him (or all humankind) was standing around with rope. Situations like this occur far too infrequently for the law to be practical, I think.
The right to life places an obligation on society to not kill one another. I guess the question is about what obligations are there to save someone.
Should the government have an obligation to save someone? (Our government does right now, ie Katrina). How about attempted suicides? I would answer yes to both of these.
If so, what does that say about it's citizens? I think there's an obligation for citizens to save one another.
-Dean
Will -- you touch on an important distinction. Notice that you are asked to be a judge, not a legislator in my blog entry. There probably is very little utility in a law that mandates such rare social situations, but judges (theoretically) do not make law. As Judge Blogreader you happen to have a freakish situation and your decision can be as narrowly applicable as the exotica in this case.
Dean -- you ask exactly the right question. Should there be any obligations for citizens to save one another? If law is utilitarian and when a life may be saved by an act of little or no inconvenience certainly the answer is yes.
But are there countervailing concerns of personal liberty and autonomy?
how many times do i gotta tell you, cut the intellectualism and post the judge bloggs version! how is judge bloggs supposed to know how to weigh the case if he doesn't understand your vocabulary.
personally, i'm with tammy on the reach of law thing. i think there's a difference between sin and crime. leo is morally obligated to act, especially minus brainfart. still, it should not be the justice system's duty to punish him. rather, morally reprehensible behavior should be punished by the citizens of society.
a good example was that berkeley kid who witnessed his friends' gangrape of a 9?year old girl but never reported it because it was 'none of his business'. the courts didn't find him guilty, but he never lived it down on campus. radio stations made him the butt of all jokes. i hope he had no friends to support him in his adamant stance that he had done nothing wrong.
there's something to be said about the price of losing one's good name in society. leo shouldn't pay in a court of law, he should pay with a lifetime inability to land a decent job.
Post a Comment
<< Home