If I am an Olympic swimmer and I notice a girl drowning in a public pool, and I choose not to save her, can I be held liable for not acting?
by 
Anonymous
ANSWERS: 20
-
In some states.
-
Yes, it's similar to the law that criminalizes you for not preventing a murder
-
Probably not, but you should be! You should be stoned to death!
-
It doesn't matter if you are Olympic swimmer or an ordinary swimmer or if you cannot swim at all. Even a non swimmer can throw some floatation device or a towel end to someonone in trouble. It only takes a little nouse. Even if you are not legally liable, you are morally so if you do nothing.
-
if you save her your face stays on the Wheeties box a few more months
-
This is from Wikipedia: Good Samaritan laws (acts) in the United States and Canada are laws/acts protecting from blame those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Under the common law, Good Samaritan laws provide a defence against torts over the activity of attempted rescue. Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue, such as exists in some civil law countries, and in the common law under certain circumstances. However, the duty to rescue where it exists may itself imply a shield from liability; for example, under the German law of "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance), a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law But....why would you choose not to help her?
-
The Good Samaritan law has some limitations. In the medical arena, it only protects the "prudent layperson." So if I, as a doctor, attempted to come to the aid of someone having a medical emergency in a restaurant, I could not use the Good Samaritan law as a shield against a malpractice suit. Unfortunately, this leads to doctors not being willing to identify themselves when an emergency is happening. Many have told me that there's no way they'd ever identify themselves on a plane if a flight attendant asked if there was a doctor present. I suspect the same would hold true for the Olympic swimmer. It's really a shame.
-
Spiritually yes...that is all that matters to me...
-
No. if you were a lifeguard, too... then you would be liable, but you're trained in swimming, not life-saving.
-
It is a form of insanity that you can be sued for trying to help. I'd never thought about it before. So I have to disagree with those who trumpet loudly that you should be drowned in a bowl of wet noodles for not doing what's necessary. The legal system should be thrown in and allowed to drown as well. then it may be safe to help
-
Good Samaritan Laws are irrelevant as they do not require action, but only provide protection if one does act. Apparently in Texas, if there is a car accident you are not required to stop and render aid, but, if you do stop, you are required to render reasonable aid. (Whatever that means??) In Nevada two EMT's were charged with a felony for failure to render aid, but that was after responding to a 911 call. In your particular scenario, we would all expect the swimmer to get his butt in there and save her, but I don't believe the law would. How would you write such a law? I know almost nothing about law, but I believe it would be very difficult to write a law requiring someone to act where he has no personal interest. If your swimmer had had something to do with the girl being in the pool in the first place, you might be able to make some kind of case, but if he is just an innocent passerby I believe remains just that, an innocent passerby.
-
Well if you are Michael Phelps then your balls ought to be on the chopping block!
-
Depends on the state and if you're stupid enough to let her drown then brag that you're an olympic swimmer?!
-
Yes, by your concience.
-
Not unless you were also the lifeguard of the pool and you were on duty. Olympic swimmers know how to swim, but unless they have taken a lifesaving or water safety instructor's course, they wouldn't know what to do anyway. An incompetent person attempting a rescue endangers him/herself AND the person he/she is trying to rescue.
-
Probably not--but you should be prosecuted for such a stupid, selfish and thoughtless choice.
-
I've seen drowning people at Virginia Beach. When someone tries to rescue them, they get pulled under by the paniced drowner. The drowner tries to climb on the rescuer as if they were a rock. Lifeguards have their "can" that has a rope that they push toward the drowner. You cannot be held liable for a situation like that, unless you are the lifeguard on duty.
-
Why would you choose not to save her? If its for legal persposes your morals are screwed up. THe good samaritans law pretects people who are in their area of expertise, so if you have had cpr training you would not be held liable.
-
Very likely no. Attempting to save someone who is drowning puts the rescuer in danger -- panicked people will often drown the rescuer by trying to climb on top of them (Coast Guard rescue divers have special training specifically in this regard). So, in your particular example, no matter if there is a requirement to help others or not, the olympic swimmer would not have to risk his life to save another, just as nobody would be required to enter a burning building to rescue those trapped inside.
-
no
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC