Duty of rescue

A duty to rescue is a concept in that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a  can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party who could face potential injury or death without being rescued. In systems, it is rarely formalized in statutes which would bring the penalty of law down upon those who fail to rescue. This does not necessarily obviate a moral to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions and awarded civil penalties, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

Common law system
In the of most, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. However, such a duty may arise in two situations:


 * A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
 * Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
 * Parents have a duty to rescue their children. This duty also applies to those acting , such as schools or babysitters.
 * have a duty to rescue their patrons.
 * Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.
 * In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property.  Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers.
 * Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.
 * In the, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: , , , , , , , , , and . These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from that protect individuals who try to help another person.  These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.

Where a duty to rescue arises, the rescuer must generally act with, and can be held liable for injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt. However, many states have in such circumstances, particularly where the rescuer is an emergency worker. Furthermore, the rescuers need not endanger themselves in conducting the rescue.

Civil law system
Many systems, which are common in Continental Europe, Latin America and much of Africa, impose a far more extensive duty to rescue. The duty is usually limited to doing what is “reasonable”. In particular, a helper does not have to substantially endanger themselves.

This can mean that anyone who finds someone in need of medical help must take all reasonable steps to seek medical care and render best-effort first aid. Commonly, the situation arises on an event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take an action to help the injured without regard to possible personal reasons not to help (e.g. having no time, being in a hurry) or ascertain that help has been requested from officials. In practice, however, almost all cases of compulsory rescue simply require the rescuer to alert the relevant entity (police, fire brigade, ambulance) with a phone call.

Shipping and the Law of the Sea
A duty to rescue arises under international shipping law: a ship which is in a position to provide assistance to persons in distress at sea must do so. This requirement is found in the and represents customary international law.

Regulations by country
In some countries, there exists a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves or others in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed. , there were such laws in several countries, including, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , the , , , , , , , and.

Argentina
has legislation on "abandonment of persons", Articles 106–108 of the, which includes the provision in Article 106 that "a person who endangers the life or health of another, either by putting a person in jeopardy or ... will be imprisoned for between 2 and 6 years" [emphasis added].

Brazil
In, the Article 135("Omission for help") of the states that: One who fails to provide medical assintance to an abandoned child(or lost) or invalid person(or harmed) who is in peril and no harm is present to himself(or herself), or doesn't call the public authority for help will be either imprisoned for a period ranging from one to six months or fined. The sentence is increased in half if the failure for help results in great personal injury and tripled if it results in death.

Canada
In, which makes use of civil law, there is a general duty to rescue in its : "Every human being whose life is in peril has a right to assistance...Every person must come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, by giving him the necessary and immediate physical assistance, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason." is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so failure to comply with an article of the Charter in Quebec does not constitute a criminal offence except if by doing so a party also violates the.

Other provinces follow common law.

In Canadian air law, it is mandatory to make oneself and one's aircraft available to aid search-and-rescue efforts if the aircraft is in the immediate area and a distress signal is received.

Denmark
Under the, all persons must provide aid to the best of their ability to any person who appears to be lifeless or in mortal danger (§ 253), must alert authorities or take similar steps to prevent impending disasters that could cause loss of life (§ 185), must comply with all reasonable requests of assistance by a public authority when a person's life, health or well-being is at stake (§ 142), and must, if they learn of a planned crime against the state, human life or well-being, or significant public goods, do everything in their power to prevent or mitigate the crime, including but not limited to reporting it to authorities (§ 141), in all cases provided that acting would not incur particular danger or personal sacrifice. Violations are punishable by up to three months (§ 142), two years (§ 185 and § 253) or three years (§ 141) in prison.

France
Anyone who fails to render assistance to a person in danger will be found liable before French Courts (civil and criminal liability). The penalty for this offence in criminal courts is imprisonment and a fine (under article 223–6 of the Criminal Code) while in civil courts judges will order payment of pecuniary compensation to the victims.

The photographers at the scene of, were investigated for violation of the French law of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (failing to provide assistance to a person in danger), which can be punished by up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to €75,000.

Germany
In, unterlassene Hilfeleistung (failure to provide assistance) is a under section 323(c) of the : any citizen is obligated to provide assistance in case of an accident or general danger if necessary, and is normally immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith and following the 's (aka ordinary prudent person's) understanding of required measures turns out to be harmful. Also, the rescuer or responder may not be held liable if the action they should take in order to help is unacceptable for them and they are unable to act (for example when unable to act at the sight of blood). In Germany, knowledge of basic emergency measures and certified attendance of a first aid and CPR course are prerequisites for being granted a driving license.

Greece
In, a citizen is required by law to provide help to anyone who asks for it in case of a tragedy or public danger, as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. According to article 288 of the criminal code, not providing help in those cases can impose a prison sentence of up to 6 months.

Israel
In 1998, enacted the “Stand-not-idly-by-thy-neighbor’s-blood Law”, taking its name from. It requires one to render assistance whenever one is in the presence of a person who, due to some sudden occurrence, is in severe and immediate danger to life, limb or health, provided that one can do so without placing oneself or a third party in danger. Notifying the authorities (e.g. the police or fire department, as relevant) or calling on others who can render assistance for aid is considered “rendering assistance” under the law. A person obliged to render assistance who fails to do so can be fined.

Russia
In, Article 125 of the criminal code prohibits knowingly abandoning people who are in life- or health-threatening situations when said people can't help themselves. However it binds only those who are either legally obligated to care for said people or who themselves have put said people into life or health threatening situation. The maximum penalty is 1 year in prison.

Serbia
In, a citizen is required by law to provide help to anyone in need (after for example a major car accident) as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. Serbian criminal code Articles 126 and 127 state that should one abandon a helpless person and/or not provide aid to a person in need, one could receive a prison sentence of up to one year. If the person dies of injuries due to no aid having been provided by the bystander, a sentence up to 8 years in prison can be imposed.

Spain
In, a citizen is required by law to provide or seek help to anyone in need as long as providing help does not endanger him or her personally. Not doing so is a criminal offence under Article 195 of the Spanish Criminal Code.

Ethical justifications
Legal requirements for a duty to rescue do not pertain in all nations, states, or localities. However, a moral or ethical duty to rescue may exist even where there is no legal duty to rescue. There are a number of potential justifications for such a duty.

One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress.

These would justify cases of rescue and in fact make such rescue a duty even between strangers. They explain why  suggests that if one saw a child drowning and could intervene to save him, they should do so, if the cost is moderate to themselves. Damage to their clothing or shoes or how late it might make them for a meeting would be insufficient excuse to avoid assistance. Singer goes on to say that one should also attempt to rescue distant strangers, not just nearby children, because globalization has made it possible to do so. Such general arguments for a duty to rescue also explain why after the, Haitians were digging family members, friends, and strangers out of the rubble with their bare hands and carrying injured persons to whatever medical care was available. They also explain why, while covering that same earthquake, journalist and physician Sanjay Gupta and a number of other MD-journalists began acting as physicians to treat injuries rather than remaining uninvolved in their journalistic roles. Similarly, they justify journalist Anderson Cooper's attempt to shepherd an injured young boy away from some "toughs" nearby in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

Specific arguments for such a duty to rescue include, but are not limited to:
 * The : treat others as one would wish to be treated. This assumes that all persons would wish to be rescued if they were in distress, and so they should in turn rescue those in distress to the best of their abilities. What counts as distress requiring rescue may, of course, differ from person to person, but being trapped or at risk of drowning are emergency situations which this position assumes all humans would wish to be rescued from.
 * : utilitarianism posits that those actions are right which best maximize happiness and reduce suffering ("maximize the good"). Utilitarian reasoning generally supports acts of rescue which contribute to overall happiness and reduced suffering.  Rule utilitarianism would look not just at whether individual acts of rescue maximize the good, but whether certain types of acts do so. It then becomes one's duty to perform those types of actions. Generally, having strangers rescue those in distress maximizes good so long as the rescue attempt does not make things worse, so one has a duty to rescue to the best of her or his ability as long as doing so will not make things worse.
 * Humanity: the rules of humanity advise that the essence of morality and right behavior is tending to human relationships. Therefore, (desirable character traits) such as compassion, sympathy, honesty, and fidelity are to be admired and developed. Acting out of compassion and sympathy will often require rescue where someone is in need. Indeed, it would not be compassionate to ignore someone's need, though the way one fulfills that need may vary. In cases of emergency, rescue would be the most compassionate act compared with allowing a person to remain trapped in rubble.

There are also ethical justifications for role-specific or skill-specific duties of rescue such as those described above under the discussion of U.S. Common Law. Generally, these justifications are rooted in the idea that the best rescues, the most effective rescues, are done by those with special skills. Such persons, when available to rescue, are thus even more required to do so ethically than regular persons who might simply make things worse (for a utilitarian, rescue by a skilled professional in a relevant field would maximize the good even better than rescue by a regular stranger). This particular ethical argument makes sense when considering the ability firefighters to get both themselves and victims safely out of a burning building, or of health care personnel such as physicians, nurses, physician's assistants, and EMTs to provide medical rescue.

These are some of the ethical justifications for a duty to rescue, and they may hold true for both regular citizens and skilled professionals even in the absence of legal requirements to render aid.

United States
In an 1898 case, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 N.H. LEXIS 49 (N.H. 1898), the unanimously held that after an eight-year-old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.

In the 1907 case, Beardsley's mistress, Blanche Burns, passed out after overdosing on morphine. Rather than seek medical attention, Beardsley instead had a friend hide her in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of manslaughter for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of Michigan saying that Beardsley had no legal obligation to her.

Some states such as Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island make it a misdemeanor offence if it is known that someone is in serious danger and someone can intervene safely or call 911 and they do not (Trinh, Li, 2015).

Germany
In 2016, an 83-year-old man collapsed in a bank lobby in and later died. Several customers stepped over him without providing assistance. With the help of security camera footage, these customers were identified and sentenced to fines of several thousand euro each for failing to provide assistance. A customer who phoned emergency services was not indicted, as he was considered to have provided sufficient assistance.