Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418 (1982)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of responsibility.There are convincing arguments for some sort of legal recognition of a duty to rescue, but these arguments do not support tort liability. Nor is a case for tort liability made with the argument that a growth of tort law in this direction would be compatible with the values most centrally involved in the division between torts and contracts. Furthermore, there is a case against tort liability — namely, that the purpose of tort liability is to compensate, that there are certain sorts of situations in which compensation is apposite, and that failure to rescue does not fit into these categories. Criminal liability is the appropriate way for the law to recognize a duty to rescue.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/BF00231222 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
To Inspect and Make Safe: On the Morally Responsible Liability of Property Owners.David Faraci & Peter Martin Jaworski - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4):697-709.
Similar books and articles
Leichhardt Municipal Council Vs. Montgomery: Non-Delegable Duties and Roads Authorities.Christian Witting - unknown
Putting the Age of Criminal and Civil Liability Into Context: A Dialogue Between Law with Psychology.Nuno Ferreira - unknown
Strict Joint and Several Liability and Justice.D. R. Cooley - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 47 (3):199-208.
The Basis of Moral Liability to Defensive Killing.Jeff McMahan - 2005 - Philosophical Issues 15 (1):386–405.
Is the Risk–Liability Theory Compatible with Negligence Law?Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta - 2005 - Legal Theory 11 (4):387-404.
The Bystander's Duty to Rescue in Jewish Law.Aaron Kirschenbaum - 1980 - Journal of Religious Ethics 8 (2):204 - 226.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
96 ( #105,674 of 2,421,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #351,445 of 2,421,244 )
2009-01-28
Total views
96 ( #105,674 of 2,421,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #351,445 of 2,421,244 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads