美国有见义勇为法吗？

来源: commonsense888 于 2011-10-18 21:14:44 [档案] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：次 (16371 bytes)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

按美国的习惯法/案例法 common law, 公民是没有义务来帮助落难的陌生人的. 也无需承担任何法律责任.除非(1) 危险是当事人造成的（2）当时人与落难人有某种特殊关系，如家长与小孩，司机与乘客，老板与员工，等

有些州有Good Samaritan laws，要求公民打电话报告陌生人落难的情况。但这些法律没有被执行过。

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. However, in the United States, 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 duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue.

[edit] Common law

In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.^[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.^[2]^[3] 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 tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.^[4]
Such a duty also arises where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
- Emergency workers (firefighters, emergency medical technicians, etc.) have a general duty to rescue the public within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Warren v. DC that the police have no duty to protect any citizen not in custody, and cannot be sued for their failure to protect.^[5]
- Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.^[6]
- Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.^[7]
- Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.^[8]^{[unreliable source?]}
- Property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all dangers on the property.
- Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.^[9]
- In the United States, 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: California,^[10]^[11] Florida,^[10]^[12]^[13] Hawaii,^[10]^[14] Massachusetts,^[10]^[15] Minnesota,^[10]^[16] Ohio,^[10]^[17] Rhode Island,^[10]^[18] Vermont,^[10]^[19] Washington,^[10]^[20]^[21] and Wisconsin.^[10]^[22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.^[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.^[1]

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

[edit] U.S. example

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court 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.^[23]