caution: answers may vary
I come to each class with a list of questions to ask about our reading material. I leave with those questions unanswered and a head full of new questions.
It does not help that the professor poses new questions for us to consider. Giving us a taste of what one of the 50 multiple choice exams questions would be like, Prof. asked:
At the beach, a five year old girl runs into the surf and drowns. Who is more likely to be charged:
a) the lifeguard on duty- who happens to be chatting with a curvaceous blonde.
b) an olympic gold medalist in swimming competition who passes by, notices the girl, but does nothing.
c) the girl's mother who was chastising her older son at that moment and didnt notice the girl run into the ocean.
d) a surf boarder who was riding the wave that the girl ran into and hits her with his board.
We had just been studying "Duty of Care"- when and under what circumstances does someone owe someone else a duty of care? We learned that family relationships are typically the strongest argument for imposing a duty of care onto another.
A couple people shout "c" as the answer.
The surf boarder cannot be found liable because we don't have enough information to covict him. He likely did not notice the girl and it may be unreasonable to say he should have been aware of the possibility as a reasonable person. No relationship or connection to the little girl.
The olympic gold medalist (although a jerk) is not liable either. He may very well have saved the girl with ease. But the law imposes no burden or duty upon him to do so. In a society that prizes individualism and freedom- nothing obligated him to the girl. We don't want it to become precedent that anyone can be charged with murder if they are able to save someone but fail to do so.
The mother very clearly has a duty of care to the girl due to her relationship as mother. The mother was doing her duty as any mother would do. She was performing her motherly duty by chastising her older son. It is unreasonable to hold the mother accountable because for a brief second her daughter wondered off- the mother had reason to expect the girl not to do so in the brief moment she turned away. the mother also probably expected that the lifeguard on duty would be doing his job. By convicting the mother- we would be set the precedent for the government to convict mothers whose children die in accidents. PLUS- the punishment would do no good- it would not deter future behavior, it will not rehabilitate the mother, it will not keep her from harming society, in fact she has suffered enough with the loss of her daughter.
The lifeguard had a contractual duty of care through his job. He had the training and the skills necessary to save the girl. The fact that he was distracted from doing his duty- when a reasonable person would have been doing his job- makes him negligent and liable. As policy we would want lifeguards to take their duty seriously in order to keep beaches safe.
If all this inner thought is required for ONE multiple choice question.....I'm in trouble.
It does not help that the professor poses new questions for us to consider. Giving us a taste of what one of the 50 multiple choice exams questions would be like, Prof. asked:
At the beach, a five year old girl runs into the surf and drowns. Who is more likely to be charged:
a) the lifeguard on duty- who happens to be chatting with a curvaceous blonde.
b) an olympic gold medalist in swimming competition who passes by, notices the girl, but does nothing.
c) the girl's mother who was chastising her older son at that moment and didnt notice the girl run into the ocean.
d) a surf boarder who was riding the wave that the girl ran into and hits her with his board.
We had just been studying "Duty of Care"- when and under what circumstances does someone owe someone else a duty of care? We learned that family relationships are typically the strongest argument for imposing a duty of care onto another.
A couple people shout "c" as the answer.
The surf boarder cannot be found liable because we don't have enough information to covict him. He likely did not notice the girl and it may be unreasonable to say he should have been aware of the possibility as a reasonable person. No relationship or connection to the little girl.
The olympic gold medalist (although a jerk) is not liable either. He may very well have saved the girl with ease. But the law imposes no burden or duty upon him to do so. In a society that prizes individualism and freedom- nothing obligated him to the girl. We don't want it to become precedent that anyone can be charged with murder if they are able to save someone but fail to do so.
The mother very clearly has a duty of care to the girl due to her relationship as mother. The mother was doing her duty as any mother would do. She was performing her motherly duty by chastising her older son. It is unreasonable to hold the mother accountable because for a brief second her daughter wondered off- the mother had reason to expect the girl not to do so in the brief moment she turned away. the mother also probably expected that the lifeguard on duty would be doing his job. By convicting the mother- we would be set the precedent for the government to convict mothers whose children die in accidents. PLUS- the punishment would do no good- it would not deter future behavior, it will not rehabilitate the mother, it will not keep her from harming society, in fact she has suffered enough with the loss of her daughter.
The lifeguard had a contractual duty of care through his job. He had the training and the skills necessary to save the girl. The fact that he was distracted from doing his duty- when a reasonable person would have been doing his job- makes him negligent and liable. As policy we would want lifeguards to take their duty seriously in order to keep beaches safe.
If all this inner thought is required for ONE multiple choice question.....I'm in trouble.
posted by Christy | 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home