Legal question: letting a child die

[Dunderman]

In this thread, a moral question is asked, but I'm more interested in the legal ramifications. While I, like Bricker in that thread, is unaware of any American law prohibiting what I'm about to describe, it just seems like some law is broken.

The situation is this: I'm skiing in the Rockies or somewhere. A sudden avalanche, brought on by a mother of a blizzard, wipes out everyone in my ski resort except for me and a small child, let's say three years of age. I have never met the child before and we have no blood relation whatsoever. The blizzard prevents help from arriving for a couple of weeks. There is plenty of food and drink, and no real risk to my life.

If I simply do not feed this child and it dies before help arrives, have I broken any American law? If so, what is my crime?

[Grey]

Criminal neglect doesn't come to mind?

[badmana]

Legally (IANAL), I don't think there's any law forcing you to help anyone else, kid or otherwise, unless there was already a binding 'agreement' in place (as in, taking care of your own kid or a child you agreed to take care of).

Are you actively holding the kid back though? Wouldn't a 3 year old be able to eat on it's own and do it's own 'thing' for a while? I'd guess if you actively prevented the child from eating (by say, taking away their food) you might be breaking a law.

[Giles]

You might want to make your hypothetical child a bit younger -- say, 3 months old. In my experience, the average 3-year-old knows how to find food and drink in a kitchen, and would feed itsel;f unless you actively prevented it (e.g., by locking up access, including access to taps in kitchen and bathrooms). So you'd have to take some positive steps to ensure that it starved

[Dunderman]

Well, all the food is in a big fridge with a heavy door or something. Or maybe the child is younger. The point is that the child cannot make it on its own, and helping the child doesn't endanger me at all.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Grey

Criminal neglect doesn't come to mind?

Well, let's see. What, specifically, does the law against "criminal neglect" prohibit?

[Giles]

I suspect that after a couple of days, the child is going to be snatching food out of your hands unless you eat with a locked door between you and the kid. Barring it from access to all sources of food and drink would probably amount to false imprisonment, and false imprisonment leading to death by starvation would have to be murder.

[Dunderman]

OK, so it's an infant and I have access to literally thousands of litres of breast milk and baby food. I also have enormous amounts of experience taking care of infants.

Really, there's little point beating various tiny aspects of the hypothetical to death. Am I committing a crime or not?

[Grey]

Oh come on. By being the only adult in the cabin you wind up effectively being the child's guardian. At that point you're responsible for the minor and so by not feeding or caring for the child you are willfully committing homicide through criminal negligence.

Now I'm not a lawyer but from reading through Consolidated Statutes of Canada

Duties Tending to Preservation of Life

Duty of persons to provide necessaries

215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years;
(b) to provide necessaries of life to their spouse or common-law partner; and
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

Criminal Negligence
219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Definition of "duty"
(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.

Homicide
222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.
Culpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Bolding is mine.

[Dunderman]

Now we're getting somewhere! It's Canada, not America, but since I'm in neither country I don't care much; this is just a question out of interest.

Here's the relevant bit:
215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty
(c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

Now, does this child become "under my charge", in the legal sense, when I'm the only adult left? Has this issue been tried?

[Grey]

Criminal Code
PART VIII OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Kidnapping, Hostage Taking and Abduction
Abduction of person under sixteen

280. (1) Every one who, without lawful authority, takes or causes to be taken an unmarried person under the age of sixteen years out of the possession of and against the will of the parent or guardian of that person or of any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "guardian"

(2) In this section and sections 281 to 283, "guardian" includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person.

Now I’m not sure how this applies outside of abduction, but if we reasonably extend the definition “in law or fact the custody or control” that might fit.

[badmana]

No, that doesn't work. Priceguy isn't a kid's 'guardian' just because the kid happens to be in the same location as him out of chance.

I'm sure the law was specifically designed NOT to 'extend the definition' on purpose. It would then become illegal to ignore a crying kid on the street (because, if that kid were to later be harmed it could be YOUR fault).

[Grey]

Not a good example since an adult on the street is not in control of the child through circumstances. A lone adult in an isolated cabin with a child would be.

[badmana]

In this case, if Priceguy did not help the kid in any way (that might legally bind him) then he's not responsible for the child. If the kid were to walk (by itself) to the cabin where Priceguy is holding up, there still isn't any legal relationship until Priceguy takes any active roll in caring (or preventing care) for the child. Remember, this started as a skiing trip or something. Priceguy had no reason to think he was in any way responsible for this child.

In this senario as long as Priceguy doesn't 'lift a finger' for the child, he's not responsible for it. It might not be morally correct but he's legally in his right to ignore the kid and help himself.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by badmana

I'm sure the law was specifically designed NOT to 'extend the definition' on purpose. It would then become illegal to ignore a crying kid on the street (because, if that kid were to later be harmed it could be YOUR fault).

A child crying in the street is not in danger of dying because of an unrelated adult's neglect: the unrelated adult can assume that a parent or guardian will eventualkly find the child.

A better example might be a child in imminent danger, with no other responsible person present. For example, I see a three-year-old alone on a railway line, and I know that a train is coming. Do I have a duty to save the child (e.g., by moving it off the track or warning the train driver) if I can do so with no danger to myself, and with little inconvenience? I suspect that I don't have a legal duty to do so, even though I have a moral duty.

[badmana]

Originally Posted by Giles

A child crying in the street is not in danger of dying because of an unrelated adult's neglect: the unrelated adult can assume that a parent or guardian will eventualkly find the child.

A better example might be a child in imminent danger, with no other responsible person present. For example, I see a three-year-old alone on a railway line, and I know that a train is coming. Do I have a duty to save the child (e.g., by moving it off the track or warning the train driver) if I can do so with no danger to myself, and with little inconvenience? I suspect that I don't have a legal duty to do so, even though I have a moral duty.

I agree. As I said (and I guess what the OP is asking) is strictly about the legal requirements.

And the crying kid CAN be in danger (I added the crying part to add to the image of a kid in some sort of danger). For instance, if you passed a small child on the side of the highway wandering around, legally, do you need to stop and help?

[Grey]

The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring.

[badmana]

Originally Posted by Grey

The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring.

No, that's a moral requirement, not a legal one.

The GD thread linked in the OP does go into the morality of this situation but as Bricker mentioned in the original thread, there is no legal requirement for one to help a stranger in any way.

I doubt even Canadian law would force responsibility of someone else's care without any action of your own (if this was [Priceguy[/b]'s home, it would be a different situation).

[madcossack]

I believe that "Good Samaritan" laws would come into effect here. Although used sparingly or late in the USA, they have been around for quite awhile.

Essentially, the adult would have an obligation to help the child, even if no other connection than circumstance came into play. Not much different than if you happen you happen upon the scene of an accident and render assistance to the injured.

Although these laws were designed to protect people in the above example (accident) from being liable for harm caused by their good intentions, they have been used in the reverse, I believe, although sparingly as I mentioned, to prosecute people who did nothing in said circumstance.

Also, leaping outside the purely legal box for a moment, I woould find it hard for a court, or jury, to ignore your ignoring of the child. Neglect would be very easy to convey, if nothing else from an emotional point of view.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Grey

The essential point in this is that there is no other guardian candidate for the child due to circumstances. Thus the adult can reasonably be expected to care for the child to the degree necessary to prevent harm from occurring.

From a legal standpoint, this is far from clear. Just because someone is in need, I don't believe there is a legal requirement for any person to help even if that person is the only one who can help.

[badmana]

Originally Posted by madcossack

I believe that "Good Samaritan" laws would come into effect here. Although used sparingly or late in the USA, they have been around for quite awhile.

Essentially, the adult would have an obligation to help the child, even if no other connection than circumstance came into play. Not much different than if you happen you happen upon the scene of an accident and render assistance to the injured.

Although these laws were designed to protect people in the above example (accident) from being liable for harm caused by their good intentions, they have been used in the reverse, I believe, although sparingly as I mentioned, to prosecute people who did nothing in said circumstance.

Also, leaping outside the purely legal box for a moment, I woould find it hard for a court, or jury, to ignore your ignoring of the child. Neglect would be very easy to convey, if nothing else from an emotional point of view.

Err, no.
http://medi-smart.com/gslaw.htm

I think people want a law to exist where one is forced to take care of another but really, it would be a very bad law.

[badmana]

Sorry, I didn't catch what you ment. The Good Samaritan law usually gets toted out before anyone reads it.

My cite shows that some states have enacted some laws regarding medical personal from not helping. I'm not sure there is any way to actively prosecute a stranger for not helping you (baring a medic/doctor/fireman/officer etc).

[Grey]

But we’ve already seen that the code lists

215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty
c) to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person
(i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and
(ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

So what does charge mean? I’ve equated it with guardianship, but I’ll admit I can’t find a definition of either. But if my “or in fact the custody or control of a child” works then the adult in question has both effective custody and control of the child and so has the obligations associated with guardianship placed upon him/her.

But again, I don’t know.

[badmana]

From dictionary.com:

To impose a duty, responsibility, or obligation on: charged him with the task of watching the young swimmers.

Again, in the above scenario the OP was never imposed a duty to help anyone but himself and his children (which are legally always under his 'charge' unless stripped of his responsibility).

Yes, he has a duty as a human being to help children or anyone who needs help but I can't see him fitting under that label in a legal sense.

[Grey]

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

n.
5. One that is entrusted to another's care or management: the baby sitter's three young charges.
6.
1. Supervision; management: the scientist who had overall charge of the research project.
2. Care; custody: a child put in my charge.

Circumstances have made the adult the de facto supervisor of the child.

But I'd like to hear what a lawyer has to say, though I think I know what Bricker post.

[Grey]

But I'd like to hear what a lawyer has to say, though I think I know what Bricker will post.

[badmana]

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

Deals with Canadian and American law. Again, no law is currently in place that forces anyone to help another person unless a 'special relationship' is in place. In the OP's scenario there is no special relationship unless he did anything to help the child.

Anything beyond this is a GD discussion which is already taking place.

[badmana]

I just wanted to point something out.

From my cite:

In Quebec, the law relating to the good samaritan is in marked contrast to the common law provinces. Quebec is unique in Canada in imposing a duty on everyone to help a person in peril...

The Charter contains a provision that imposes an obligation to render aid if it can be accomplished without serious risk to the good samaritan or a third person.

Under the Civil Code, every person is obligated to act as a bon pere de famille, broadly defined as a reasonably prudent person. Failure to do so would amount to fault and lead to legal wrong.

Under civil law in Europe, it is a criminal offence not to assist an individual in an emergency. There is a high degree of uniformity among these European laws.

The US does not have any laws regarding anything like this. Only Quebec and parts of Europe. So in this case, there could be a criminal action.

But the answer to whether the US has any laws regarding something like this is, no.

[Walloon]

Wyoming statutes:

6?2?105.Manslaughter; penalty.

(a) A person is guilty of manslaughter if he unlawfully kills any human being without malice, expressed or implied, either:
(i) Voluntarily, upon a sudden heat of passion; or
(ii) Involuntarily, but recklessly except under circumstances constituting a violation of W.S. 6-2-106(b).
(b) Manslaughter is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than twenty (20) years.

Key phrases italicized.

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally Posted by Grey

Circumstances have made the adult the de facto supervisor of the child.

De facto, yes. De jure, no.

De jure is what is under discussion here. The fact that this adult, through the whims of chance, has been thrown into close contact with the infant does not impose a duty on him in most if not all American jurisdictions. (IANAL)

There was a town (Connecticutt, maybe?) that considered imposing such a duty. As I recall, they didn't actually do it, but that was the inspiration for the finale of Seinfeld.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Grey

But if my “or in fact the custody or control of a child” works then the adult in question has both effective custody and control of the child and so has the obligations associated with guardianship placed upon him/her.

I do not know for certain either but a gut check tells me this seems what they'd likely get you on. I think the court/jury/society would be so appalled at such an occurrence happening a jury/judge/prosecutor wouldn't find it too hard to stretch the law a bit to get the adult in jail (doubtless a prosecutor would try anyway). In this case I do not think stretching the law to cover the adult would leave it too wide open to get people ignoring a child on the street.

Just a WAG though. IANAL

[madcossack]

Originally Posted by badmana

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

Deals with Canadian and American law. Again, no law is currently in place that forces anyone to help another person unless a 'special relationship' is in place. In the OP's scenario there is no special relationship unless he did anything to help the child.

Anything beyond this is a GD discussion which is already taking place.

Originally Posted by badmana

Sorry, I didn't catch what you ment. The Good Samaritan law usually gets toted out before anyone reads it.

My cite shows that some states have enacted some laws regarding medical personal from not helping. I'm not sure there is any way to actively prosecute a stranger for not helping you (baring a medic/doctor/fireman/officer etc).

If you follow the link you provided, but dig a bit deeper to here:

http://medi-smart.com/gslaw-cases.htm

you will see that some states also protect non-medical people from this as well, like boat operators and the like. In contrast, some states specifically exclude non-trained "civilians" from Good Samaritan laws. If you are not trained in CPR or the like, you CAN be sued in some states (or Commonwealths) in the US if you help, but this is off oour main point, I realize.

Not trying to belabor a proving point here, since I can't cite something more specific right now, but the link you gave here:

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

does not cite anything other than generalities. Again, not trying to be a prick. I want cites, legal ones, as much as the next guy. So...

IANAL, but my brother is. I remember him telling me about the Good Samaritan issue when he was studying in law school. Bear in mind this is from memory, but I believe it was in regards to the complicated legal structure of the train system in America, basically created during the 19th century. There were Good Samaritan laws that required people to help in case of certain situations, but they were rarely enforced. Nowadays many of them may be off the books, like silly holdovers that say you can't eat cashews on Tuesdays if you are riding a mule down Main Street.

Anyway, since I can't specifically prove my point, especially to my own satisfaction, I will attempt to contact my brother* and see if he can cite anything relevant for me.

*2nd smartest person I know

[Grey]

Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael

De facto, yes. De jure, no.

De jure is what is under discussion here. The fact that this adult, through the whims of chance, has been thrown into close contact with the infant does not impose a duty on him in most if not all American jurisdictions. (IANAL)[/b].

But the definition is “in law or in fact” de jure or de facto which makes it critical.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by madcossack

]Although these laws were designed to protect people in the above example (accident) from being liable for harm caused by their good intentions, they have been used in the reverse, I believe, although sparingly as I mentioned, to prosecute people who did nothing in said circumstance.

*sigh*

Cite?

This is the home of factual responses, not speculation. Please find an example of such a prosecution that is consistent with our hypothetical.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Walloon

Wyoming statutes:Key phrases italicized.

Recklessly means having a duty of care and violating it. Show that the adult has a duty of care to the child in this instance.

My comments, by the way, go solely to US law. Civil law jurisdictions may well differ; I leave comment on them to those that know them.

[badmana]

Originally Posted by madcossack

http://www.sarbc.org/goodsam.html

does not cite anything other than generalities. Again, not trying to be a prick. I want cites, legal ones, as much as the next guy. So...

I think the best way to go around finding a cite is to locate a case in which someone was charged with total inaction without having a special relationship to the victim.

[Cheesesteak]

Take a peek at this section of the linked Canadian code, just a bit further down

218. Every one who unlawfully abandons or exposes a child who is under the age of ten years, so that its life is or is likely to be endangered or its health is or is likely to be permanently injured, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

To my non-legal eye, there is nothing in here that suggests one must be a legal guardian to be bound by this. What "unlawfully abandons or exposes" means exactly is beyond me, maybe guardianship is buried in there. If not, this suggests that one cannot just leave a young child in a dangerous situation without punishment.

[LawHog]

In almost every U.S. jurisdiction, under the common law the adult in the OP hypothetical would have no duty to aid the child. In fact, there is generally no legal duty to aid another person in any type of danger, even when aid can be given without inconvenience. Legal duties to act arise from relationships. The only adults who have a legal duty to care for a child are its parents, legal guardians, and those acting in loco parentis, e.g., teachers, bus drivers, etc. So an Olympic swimmer has no legal duty to save a drowning man, but a lifeguard has a legal duty to save a drowning child, provided the child is drowning in the pool over which the lifeguard maintains care.

It is possible, however, to assume a legal duty by action. If the OP adult fed the child for a week, a court might find the adult had assumed a duty to continue to care for the child.

So-called Good Samaritan laws are frequently misunderstood by nonlawyers (thanks, in part, to the finale of Seinfeld). Such laws do not usually compel people to aid someone in need, rather, they often protect rescuers from liability. Only a handful of states have Good Samaritan laws that actually impose criminal liability on a person who knows that a crime is being committed and that the victim is exposed to bodily harm, but fails to summon aid or provide assistance (Wisconsin’s, for example, is W.S.A. 940.34). Such a law would not apply to the OP hypothetical because no crime was being committed.

LawHog

[Chronos]

I don't think that it can be illegal to neglect the child in this case. For those saying that the situation has created a guardianship, consider a slightly different scenario: Suppose that the avalance leaves three survivors, two adults and a child. None of the three has had any previous contact or any sort of legally-recognized relationship with either of the others, and the child is unable to fend for himself. Does one of the two adults become the child's guardian? Both of them? Can each of the adults independently decide that the child is the other's responsibility, and both therefore neglect him? And if the child dies in that situation, is either or both of the adults liable? Or suppose that there are even more survivors. Is it possible for a child to have three guardians? Four? A dozen?

[Walloon]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Recklessly means having a duty of care and violating it.

I disagree.

[Random]

I agree with Bricker.


And, although I'm not a Canadian lawyer, I do not read Grey's statute as creating any liability for the hypothetical skier.

The closest language says:

215. (1) Every one is under a legal duty ... to provide necessaries of life to a person under his charge if that person (i) is unable, by reason of detention, age, illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge, and (ii) is unable to provide himself with necessaries of life.

There's a requirement that the kid be under the adult's charge - an existing legal relationship, created voluntarily or through operation of law. So a teacher, school bus driver, day care employee or similar person with responsibility for the child would be potentially responsible. Someone in the child's presence through happenstance would not be.

To get to the point that Grey asserts, there'd need to be another law (or perhaps a definition in this law) that stated that a random adult with no prior connection to the child has a responsibility to take care of the child if no one else is available. That law doesn't seem to exist.

Said another way, Grey's argument kind of begs the question. If someone is "under my charge" I have a responsibility for him already. A law that only kicks in when that responsibility already exists cannot logically create that responsibility if it doesn't.

Why have the law at all, then? Simple - at a minimum, it criminalizes the breach of that pre-existing duty.

[barbitu8]

Originally Posted by madcossack

IANAL, but my brother is. I remember him telling me about the Good Samaritan issue when he was studying in law school. Bear in mind this is from memory, but I believe it was in regards to the complicated legal structure of the train system in America, basically created during the 19th century. There were Good Samaritan laws that required people to help in case of certain situations, but they were rarely enforced. Nowadays many of them may be off the books, like silly holdovers that say you can't eat cashews on Tuesdays if you are riding a mule down Main Street.

As LawHog has indicated, the states that have enacted Good Samaritan laws have done so to protect those attempting to render aid. Under the common-law, you have no duty to render any aid (barring relationships or circumstances that impose a duty), but if you attempt to do so, and the person is injured, you can be liable. The classic case is of a person drowning. If you throw him a life preserver and it hits him, you could be liable for any injury resulting from your action. So, it is just the opposite of what you said, and I don't know what it has to do with the train system.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Take a peek at this section of the linked Canadian code, just a bit further down To my non-legal eye, there is nothing in here that suggests one must be a legal guardian to be bound by this. What "unlawfully abandons or exposes" means exactly is beyond me, maybe guardianship is buried in there. If not, this suggests that one cannot just leave a young child in a dangerous situation without punishment.

No. Similar problem. The abandonment must first be unlawful. Your argument is circular. This law does not in any way make ignoring/abandoning a child unlawful. If the abandonment is unlawful, the law creates consequences

[Random]

[quote=Bricker]Recklessly means having a duty of care and violating it. [/b]

Originally Posted by Walloon

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Random

I agree with Bricker.

(This isn't the Bricker statement that I was endorsing.) Technically, Walloon is correct, if Bricker meant this definition of "reckless" to be complete (which I don't think he did). To be reckless, the behavior must be something more than mere negligence or carelessness. The disregard of the duty must be more extreme.

But there still must be a duty of care and a breach of that duty, (which I believe was his point).

[doreen]

I suppose this NY law might fit

260.10 Endangering the welfare of a child.
A person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when:
1. He knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the
physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years
old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation
involving a substantial risk of danger to his life or health; or
2. Being a parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the
care or custody of a child less than eighteen years old, he fails or
refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to
prevent him from becoming an "abused child," a "neglected child," a
"juvenile delinquent" or a "person in need of supervision," as those
terms are defined in articles ten, three and seven of the family court
act.
Endangering the welfare of a child is a class A misdemeanor.

Depends on exactly what "acts" means- and I couldn't find a definition in the penal law. Only the second paragraph requires any sort of relationship between the child and the adult.

[madcossack]

Originally Posted by barbitu8

As LawHog has indicated, the states that have enacted Good Samaritan laws have done so to protect those attempting to render aid. Under the common-law, you have no duty to render any aid (barring relationships or circumstances that impose a duty), but if you attempt to do so, and the person is injured, you can be liable. The classic case is of a person drowning. If you throw him a life preserver and it hits him, you could be liable for any injury resulting from your action. So, it is just the opposite of what you said, and I don't know what it has to do with the train system.

My point about the trains was this: in the 19th century in America, much of the rail system operated in non-urban areas. Laws were enacted at the time that compelled people who witnessed a train accident to render aid. This was devised to help the rail system remain viable. Albeit an unlikely scenario, and very very rarely used.

All of these arguments regarding Good Samaritan that have been cited or discussed here seem to be laws that are working on the reverse of this, namely to protect an individual who attempts to render aid at some point. But that was not what the OP was asking.

My point in a nutshell: there were laws compelling people to act, but they may not be around now, and may have been very rarely invoked.

I did not make myself as clear on that as I had hoped. I apologize.

[Cliffy]

At common law, you simply don't have a duty to help people and keep them from injury -- you merely have a general duty not to injure them. (Unless of course you're responsible for their predicament -- if you caused the avalanche, e.g.)

The exception is if you and the person in need of help have a special relationship. The classic example is the parent-child relationship. Therefore, the question in the OP really is whether the circumstance forms one of these important special relationships.

Probably no. Typically a special relationship (outside the parent one) is formed when the responsible party is getting some benefit from the relationship -- a professional is getting paid for advice, a school official is getting paid out of tuition, etc. No benefit in the OP. The relationship typically is one willingly entered by at least the responsible party -- usually you cannot be forced to be responsible for someone other than your child. Not the case here.

Special relationships have been formed de facto, I think, but IIRC they happen when the responsible party offers his assistance and the other party begins to rely on it. In this case, the removal of the assistance is a form of harm, or could lead to it, so it's not a situation in which one has been purely passive.

I say as a matter of common law there's no tort and certainly no crime committed here. However, this is the type of thing where the legislature might revise the duties at the common law, so in any given jurisdiction the law may be very different.

--Cliffy

P.S. For God's sake, please don't anyone rely on this post for legal advice. This isn't my area of practice and I'm not licensed in your state. I am not competent to represent you.

[Random]

Originally Posted by doreen

I suppose this NY law might fit



Depends on exactly what "acts" means- and I couldn't find a definition in the penal law. Only the second paragraph requires any sort of relationship between the child and the adult.

Even the first paragraph requires an overt act by the person to be charged. Our skier is not acting to put the child in danger. He's refraining from acting. Again, the statute doesn't create any resposibility to act where none doesn't already exist.

[Random]

"..where one doesn't already exist."

[LawHog]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

P.S. For God's sake, please don't anyone rely on this post for legal advice. This isn't my area of practice and I'm not licensed in your state. I am not competent to represent you.

Oh, yeah, same for me.

LawHog