This was just mentioned in a GD thread having to do with abortion. It was a metaphor, but I wondered about the concrete reality.
Suppose I live in a house in the middle of nowhere, miles and miles away from any other shelter, and there’s a killing snowstorm, and a guy’s car breaks down, and he gets as far as my door. He begs to be allowed to stay until the storm lets up.
Can I legally say, “Tough toenails, runt. My house is my castle. Get you on gone?” It would be pretty hard to distinguish this from murder, and yet, legally, can the stranger invoke a legal obligation and right to emergency shelter?
PLEASE don’t talk about abortion in this thread. I didn’t want to highjack their thread, so please don’t highjack this one. I only want to know: is a deadly snowstorm the basis for mandatory “good samaritan” or life-saving hospitality in the U.S.? Does it differ by state? If I kick the guy out, and he somehow lives, can he get me with a civil case for damages or a criminal case of some sort?
(In practice, I have taken people in and given them shade and water in extremely hot conditions. The only decent thing to do. But…legally…do ya have ta?)
You don’t have to take someone in to shelter them from a storm, but if you don’t I hope you burn in the private hell that your particular religion dictates. And I hope if you deny shelter during a storm your kids, your spouse, your neighbors and your friends are aware of it. You deserve to be shunned. And no you are not under a legal obligation. You are under a moral one.
That said, I don’t think this correlates at all to abortion. A clump of cells is not a human being.
No idea on the law in modern days, but in many ancient societies it was considered a societal obligation to provide for someone in such a condition.
The ancient Greeks had the concept of xenia, and it was considered gravely immoral to refuse a stranger basic hospitality. To the point that the ancient Greeks believed Gods would wreck immediate doom on persons who refused to provide such hospitality.
The Pashtun people traditionally had the melmastia concept, which was a similar code of hospitality (and explicitly applied to anyone of any creed, friend or stranger.)
The bible contains several passages that give a good approximation of what hospitality practices were probably like in that region of the world at the time the bible was written (you were expected to provide food and sustenance to travelers–and the traveler refusing such was considered akin to naming the person you were refusing to accept hospitality from a mortal enemy.)
Everyone is also probably familiar with medieval monasteries offering hospitality to visitors and travelers as an act of Christian faith. While that is the most famous type of medieval hospitality, most freeholders, nobles or etc who had shelter would generally be expected to follow the same sort of behavior. (But the code of hospitality wasn’t so strong, so outside of the monasteries your chance of shelter from the storm would be reduced significantly.)
Not sure if there are any laws about providing shelter from a snowstorm.
A different hypothetical with certain parallels would be providing aid to persons adrift at sea. Masters of vessels flying a flag of a country that has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have a legal obligation to render aid. The United States is not a signatory nation. Canada is.
Similar obligations also arise from Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea The United States has ratified the 1974 and 1978 SOLAS protocols. Canada acceded to the 1974 SOLAS protocols.
Legally you certainly don’t have to let anyone into your house. If you did this law would give armed robbers carte blanche to enter any house in the middle of the night any time there was a snow storm. Once you consider that, the idea that an 80 year old Granny might have to let a dozen large men into her house in the middle of the night becomes ludicrous.
And no, you can’t be charged with murder through inaction. If the guy was your guest and you threw him out into a snowstorm and refused to let him back in you could be charged because it was only your actions that led to him being there. Ditto if you lent him your car knowing it was prone to breaking down. But if all you have done is *refused *to take action you can’t be done for murder.
In some jurisdictions you might, just possibly in exceptional circumstances, be done for reckless homicide, manslaughter, depraved indifference or something similar if you don’t call the police and let them know the guy is out there. If a prosecutor can convince a jury that you knew he was at risk, and you didn’t take even the most basic steps to stop that, then you are potentially in trouble. You probably won’t be, and I don’t know of any cases where it’s happened, but the potential exists.
Note that even here, you aren’t in trouble for not letting him in. You still aren’t obliged to let anyone into your home, because you are never obliged to put yourself or property in danger which you clearly would be if you let strangers into your house in the middle of the night. But you may potentially be in trouble if you don’t bother to contact the authorities and let them deal with it. You are in trouble for being so utterly indifferent to the death of another person that you wouldn’t do something to help them that costs you nothing and takes less than 2 minutes of your time. If you don’t have a phone then you’re basically home free because there aren’t any cost-free steps you can take to help the guy.
“Good Samaritan” laws apply to people, presumbly not trained medical professionals, giving medical aid to someone in distress. The laws, for the most part, are meant to shield such persons from civil and/or criminal liability arising directly from rendering such aid.
Here in Oregon, the recent passage of such a law–presumably offering the “Good Samaritan” much more protection than with other such laws elsewhere–has sparked a fair amount of controversy as there isn’t yet a large body of case law dealing with the prosecution/suing of someone who inadvertently caused someone harm while trying to save them.
What you are talking about is actually a “duty to rescue” law, and while I loathe quoting Ickypedia, this article actually gives a cogent overview of the subject. The article mentions that there are ten states with laws on the books that obligate a person to at least notify the authorities if someone is in peril. It also notes that these are not “Good Samaritan” laws.
It would seem that you can slam and bar the door on the freezing motorist if you wish. I would wonder, then, if he’s allowed to break into your house (or at least your garage) in order to save his own life? Hmmmm…
I know the OP asked for US law, but I’m going to sneak in the relevant paragraph from the Norwegian penal code anyway:
Refusing someone shelter from a snowstorm would certainly be in violation of subsection a, and giving them shelter wouldn’t be considered a grave risk or sacrifice.
I’d say it certainly could depending on the circumstances, no one could fault a single woman for being nervous about letting in a large man who looks like he is in a biker gang.
Actually, there’s precedent here. IIRC a medieval English queen - I forget which one - was on a pilgrimage and sought shelter for the night from a noble which was refused. Hubby turned up a while later with an army in tow…
Kinda hard to see how it could *not *be a grave risk. Letting a complete stranger into your house with your family while you are all asleep is about as grave a risk as it’s possible to imagine.
If this is not the case then you are saying that any robber, rapist or murderer in Norway simply has to knock on the door on a stormy night and the people inside have to let him in.
Many many years ago I lived in northern Canada. Fellow workers often travelled several hours on a deserted hghway to the next town. “Deserted” - the gas sations were more than 60 miles apart. Otherwise - no signs of civilization except microwave towers and power lines. Nothing, just forest.
Some locals were known to travel in less-than-adequate vehicles, the local expression being “Indian wagon”.
If you have never been in 40-below weather, it’s hard to describe. In the first Superman movie, Christopher Reeves walks down the ALaska highway in a windbreaker after losing his superpowers; that’s Hollywood fantasy. Of the 4 people who did that for real that I heard of - they went Jeeping inadequately dressed with thin coats and sneakers, had a flat tire and had to walk 10 miles, -40 but dead calm, no wind. 3 froze to death, 1 lost several toes but actually lived, only because he made it to town, was stumbling around blindly disoriented at 3AM and a taxi driver saw him and took him to the hospital. Saddest was the guy that made it 10 miles, only to fall and die trying to climb the river bank on the edge of town. (BTW: -40C = -40F = Truly fukin’ cold)
I had a discussion almost identical to the OP with several co-workers. If you saw someone broken down or stuck in the ditch at 40 below would you stop and give them a lift? As a healthy, hefty 30yo travelling alone, I said I had no problem with that. The others said no damn way - you have no idea who they were until you stop, they could be drunk, they could pull a knife and rob you, and most importantly, are you going to make some stranger or two squeeze into the back seat right next to your children?
Different perspective with family involved.
Of course, all said they would notify the authorities at the next stop, meaning help would likely arrive within 2 hours.
If you travelled in that area, you should be prepared.
Thank you, definitely; it provides a different moral perspective. I’d personally agree with such laws being passed here, but I guess that’s more of a debate stance than “factual questions” material. (Oops, so, pretend I didn’t say that.)
Grin! That’s what ya call “settling out of court!”
I suppose it could fall under the classification of “negligent homicide” or even “creating or maintaining an attractive nuisance,” what with your warm home and lighted windows glowing through the blizzard. If you didn’t intend to provide shelter to random storm victims, you’d turn off the lights and peer suspiciously through the curtains like a normal recluse.
They can stay in the barn. We have a roomie in a studio on the top floor, and the rest is heated just enough that the pipes do not freeze [we can and frequently do lock the bottom level garage area off from the rest of the barn, we use it as an isolation area for sick animals we need to vet.] Not the most comfortable perhaps, but they won’t freeze to death. There is a microwave and a coffee maker down there, so they won’t starve. They can rummage in our freezer.
Except, after you have kicked Freezing Dude to the kerb, isn’t he just going to break into your house anyway? If it’s that or death? I’m not seeing how shutting the door in his face actually helps you there.
