Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The quiet Samaritan

Walking down the street Jones sees a flowerpot fall out of a window, threatening another pedestrian. Jones could save him simply by shouting a warning but he keeps silent. Under prevailing law in the United States, in cases of this kind, Jones is not liable for failing to warn the pedestrian.

Should the law be changed so as to impose liability upon a bystander such as Jones in the preceding situation? If so, why? If not, why not?

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 8:31 PM on Jan. 22, 2010 in Religion & Beliefs

Answers (7)
  • Who can prove that jones saw the flowerpot fall?? (i personally think jones should yell or run to this person's aid somehow)

    I don't think that law would be valid, as it would be very hard to prove. Because whoever was a "witness" to Jones not helping could have also helped the flowerpot victim as well. right?

    Answer by CinderAmethyst at 8:37 PM on Jan. 22, 2010

  • No its too hard to prove. We could all be arrested of something because we happen to be looking the wrong way. Is it the right, moral and ethical thing to help the pedestrian, yes.


    Answer by RyansMom001 at 8:43 PM on Jan. 22, 2010

  • Under prevailing law in the US? No. Sometimes in this country, fingers are quickly pointed to blame and ppl have a hard time accepting responsibility. Somethings are simply accidents and nothing more. (Im tired. Im overthingking)

    Answer by 3gigglemonsters at 9:07 PM on Jan. 22, 2010

  • seems like a moral issue not a legal issue....

    Answer by robyann at 9:39 PM on Jan. 22, 2010

  • Moral issues and legal issues are different. Morally, should he have warned the individual? Yes, of course- if he saw and had the chance to react. Legally, should he be prosecuted for not warning the person? No- because how could you ever prove whether or not he saw the flowerpot, whether he looking away at the crucial moment, whether he saw but his reaction time was just a crucial too slow... simply not able to be proven. It's one thing to prosecute something for something that they did, and something else again to prosecute someone for something that they should have done but didn't, especially when circumstances are unclear.

    Answer by Freela at 8:54 AM on Jan. 23, 2010

  • No, absolutely not.

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 10:10 AM on Jan. 23, 2010

  • There was a gang rape that happened in a city not far from here and many were bystanders who did nothing to help the girl and many had cell phones. Someone who wasn't in the group called and they found her under the bench left for dead.
    Several were arrest for rape but those that did nothing were not. I personally think they should have been arrested regardless.
    However many were under 18 and by law they couldn't. Over 18 I am not sure what the law is for that.

    Answer by Shaneagle777 at 12:36 PM on Jan. 23, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.