An argument against a legal duty to rescue
Journal of Social Philosophy 26 (1):16-38 (1995)
Abstract
Indeed, to a layperson reading the relevant case law, it almost seems that the courts sometimes try to make this principle seem as shocking as possible. In one decision that is often cited, a unanimous state supreme court held that, not only did an eight year old boy have no right to be rescued by the defendant from having his hand caught in a machine in the defendant's factory, but he (the boy, as a trespasser) would even have been liable for damages to the defendant in this case had his hand, in being ground up by the defendant's machine, damaged the machineAuthor's Profile
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-9833.1995.tb00055.x
My notes
Similar books and articles
Free riders and pious sons – why science research remains obligatory.Sarah Chan & John Harris - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (3):161-171.
The Bystander's Duty to Rescue in Jewish Law.Aaron Kirschenbaum - 1980 - Journal of Religious Ethics 8 (2):204 - 226.
Analogical Reasoning and Easy Rescue Cases.Thomas Young - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Research 18:327-339.
Legal obligation as a duty of deference.Kimberley Brownlee - 2008 - Law and Philosophy 27 (6):583 - 597.
Preventive vs. curative medicine: Perspectives of the jewish legal tradition.Martin P. Golding - 1983 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (3):269-286.
In re Edna MF: Case law confusion in surrogate decision making.Robyn S. Shapiro - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (1):45-54.
Analytics
Added to PP
2010-08-10
Downloads
56 (#212,586)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
2010-08-10
Downloads
56 (#212,586)
6 months
1 (#448,551)
Historical graph of downloads