Err, no.
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.
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).
But we’ve already seen that the code lists
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.
From dictionary.com:
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.
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.
But I’d like to hear what a lawyer has to say, though I think I know what Bricker will post. :smack:
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.
I just wanted to point something out.
From my cite:
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.
Wyoming statutes:
Key phrases italicized.
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.
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
If you follow the link you provided, but dig a bit deeper to here:
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
But the definition is “in law or in fact” de jure or de facto which makes it critical.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
I disagree.