"good samaritan law?? you don't have to help anyone in this country!"
the ease/difficulty of drawing the line of duty...
legal duties:
1. statutory
2. status (parent/child and spouse/spouse)
3. contractual
4. voluntary assumption of care and seclusion (i.e., the good samaritan created a duty when he acted, couldn't just leave the guy once he'd started rescuing him)
5. creation of the peril
why do we want to impose duties on beardsley and blanche?
U: encourage rescue R: punish immoral behavior
OR
"free society" argument, that people should be free to act voluntarily
wherewithal for the duty:
1. knowledge of the peril
2. ability to help
3. knowledge of the facts giving rise to the duty
duty + wherewithal = ACT
act + mental state + causation =
beardsley cont.
when is there a duty? what mental state and prerequisite knowledge is required for the defendant to be on the line?
how can we establish some kind of relationship here? you owe a duty to not be negligent to anyone on your property or in your residence when you invite them...
so why let beardsley off the hook?
1. no statutory duty
2. no formal status -- ct takes a moralistic view of imposing duty on sex partners would elevate the status of the relationship in a socially degrading way
3. contractual -- is there not an implicit contract that she's been invited to his home to be under his care in some way?
4. seclusion --
5. creation of the peril --
"weak argument": logical fallacy (slippery slope)
why not make everyone have a duty to everyone else?
why not have good samaritan statutes?
why not legislate morality? isn't the retributive theory underlying the criminal doctrine?
moral questions about which people do and do not agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment