Journal of Social Philosophy 26 (1):16-38 (1995)
AbstractIndeed, 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 machine
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.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.