Law of ommisions evaluation
- Created by: charlie
- Created on: 07-02-18 11:47
View mindmap
- Good Samaritan Law
- Evaluantion on the Law of Ommissions
- Assuming a duty
- It seems harsh someone who accepts an adult in to their home can be held to have an assumed duty towards them e.g like in Stone v Dobinson.
- The argument for imposing a duty is that the person assuming the duty is the best person to ensure that potential harm is avoided as they will know the vulnerability of the victim which others will not.
- Medical treatment
- This area of the law seems contradictory. Doctors are allowed to do something in which they know will kill the patient if they beleiveit to be in their best interests but euthanaisia is not allowed.
- Statutory duties
- The fact failing to do a statutory duty constritues the actus reus of an offence is good because it is for the greater good and safety of society. A recent example of a new statute which is highly beneficial is under the Domestic violence, Crime and Victims 2004 Act all members of a household are liable for failure to protect a child.
- But if a driver fails to get insurance to drive, those injured by him are very unlikely not to get any compensation which is not fair.
- Assuming a duty
- Moral responsibility is in favour of this law e.g surely if a stranger can see a child going near the edge of a cliff they should help them.
- It could be seen as unfair that 'ordinary people' have to help when we pay taxes for trained services like the police and fire brigades for 'emergencies'. Therfore, it could be said the taxpayer is already doing their bit.
- Another disadvantage is an untrained person could unintentionally do more harm than good or put their own life at risk, causing more work for the emergency services and possibly two deaths.
- It would be impractical to prosecute large numbers of people if more than one person witnessed the incident.
- Evaluantion on the Law of Ommissions
Comments
No comments have yet been made