Should English Criminal Law impose a general duty on citizens to assist persons who are in peril? The general duty to assist a person in peril could also be defined as a Good Samaritan law. A Good Samaritan law offers legal protection to individuals who help to aid a person in peril. The Good Samaritan laws were named after a parable told in Luke 10:25-37 of the bible. The story tells us about a traveler giving aid to a person of a different ethnic background in peril.
This applies as long as the Good Samaritan uses reasonable care when providing assistance, he/she cannot be sued if the person they are trying to help is unintentionally injured further. The main part of this definition is the caption “reasonable care”. If the Good Samaritan does not use reasonable care the law cannot protect them. It would be difficult for the court to decide whether reasonable care has been used. The court could look at the rule of causation, this has three components the first is factual causation. Factual causation asks whether the defendant was the cause in fact.
This is established through using the ‘but for’ test as seen in R v White, in this case the defendant poisoned his mother’s drink and she later died however in the coroner’s report it was revealed that she had died of natural causes and had not consumed any of the poison. The court created the ‘but for’ test and said but for the defendants actions the death of the victim would have occurred anyway. The court could then look at legal causation this is where the defendant must be proven to be an operating and substantial cause as in the case of R v Kimsey where the court said that the defendant must be more than a slight or trifling link.
Finally the court could look at the chain of causation which is a serious of events that link the actions of the defendant to the consequences inflicted upon the victim. This chain of events can be broken by one of three intervening acts: bad medical treatment, the victims own actions and the thin skull rule. These three intervening acts closely relate to the Good Samaritan law. For example the citizen assisting the person in peril could provide the wrong kind of first aid treatment as they may not be completely knowledgeable in this area.
Therefore they could be providing bad medical treatment which would impact on the judge’s decision whether reasonable care has been used. At the moment in the UK the only laws we have regarding an obligation to assist a person in peril is under an omission. An omission is a failure to perform an act agreed to, where there is a duty to an individual or the public to act. An omission can amount to the Actus Reus of a crime, however, the general rule regarding omissions is that there is no liability for a failure to act. For example if you see a person drowning you have no obligation to help them.
This could be seen as a gap in the law therefore it could said that this is a reason that English Criminal law should impose a duty on general citizens to assist a person in peril. Although this is the general rule there are exceptions. The first exception is when there is a statutory duty to act for example stopping at a red light under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Another example is where there is a contractual duty to act. This where it states in a defendants employment contract that they must act. A case example would be in R v Pitwood where the defendant failed to lower the level crossing barrier which resulted in the victim dying.
The defendant was found guilty of manslaughter as he had breached his contractual duty. Finally the third exception is when the duty is imposed by law. There are three situations in which this may happen; failing to rectify a dangerous situation as in R v Miller, when there has been a voluntary acceptance of a duty as in Dobinson v Stone and finally misconduct in a public office as in R v Dytham. One reason against English Criminal law imposing a duty on citizens to assist a person in peril is that it will open the floodgates to legalizing similar issues such a Euthanasia.
This could occur because the Good Samaritan law will be put into place to assist a person in peril. The word peril means to be exposed to serious danger, therefore arguably it could be said that Euthanasia should also be legalized as the person assisting the suicide is acting in a similar way as a citizen helping a person in peril. A second reason it that English Criminal should not impose this duty to act is that it will be difficult for the court to decide what is in fact meant by the term “reasonable care”. This is a problem as it could lead to inconsistency in the law and the law would be criticised for being biased and unjust.
In America there is a Good Samaritan laws in every state. Although the key principles of the law are the same in every state, the rules regarding the law differ greatly. For example in Alabama the Good Samaritan will only have protection if they are medically trained, a public education employee, or any lay person who is assisting a person that is suffering from a cardiac arrest. In contract the law in Vermont states that a person is obligated to act if they see a person in peril, therefore in this state legal action can take place against a person if they fail to assist the person in peril.
One reason for English Criminal law establishing this law is that it will hopefully reduce the unnecessary use of public services. For example if a citizen assisted a person who was choking; provided that they are trained in first aid it will reduce the chances of that person dying therefore decreasing death rates. Furthermore if the citizen could prevent the peril occurring in the first place for example splitting up a fight before the victim is seriously injured(becoming in peril) this will reduce the need to call an ambulance therefore saving time and medical expenses which is a major factor in British parliament.
A second reason for having a Good Samaritan law in England is that it will provide protection form error. This means that although the citizen is trying to help the person in peril by conducting first aid mistakes may happen and as long as the harm was not intentionally caused then the citizen would not be charged. For example if the citizen was performing CPR and broke the individuals ribs whilst doing so they would not be charged for the injuries as the CPR was essential to helping the individual in peril and the breaking of ribs is a common side effect of CPR as great force is required.
Without the Good Samaritan law being in place the citizen would be held liable for the further injuries caused to the individual in peril. Overall it could be said that the topic of having a Good Samaritan law in the England is very debatable due to the advantages and disadvantages of it however with careful drafting by parliament and ministers of this department it could be successful in correcting the gap that currently exists in the law.
In conclusion I think that a Good Samaritan law should be imposed because the impact it will have on strengthening our public service sector will be great as it make sure that the use of the service is only for important calls. However I think that there should be strict guideline that all judges should follow to avoid judicial precedence and biased outcomes that are inconsistent.
