Castro Valley: Janitor saw elderly become weak

[happyslug]

68. First it is case law. the Wikipedia cite does a nice overview

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)

What I mean by case law, is the courts have found it to have been the law since the middle ages and the states have NOT passed a statute on the same subject. Under the Common Law, which applies to the Federal Government and all 50 states (with some exceptions in Lousianna) such case law is the law UNLESS expressly overturn by the courts OR by a Statute passed by a state legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Beardsley

Beardsley is cited in Jones vs the United States a 1962 case:

There are at least four situations in which the failure to act may constitute breach of a legal duty. One can be held criminally liable: first, where a statute imposes a duty to care for another; second, where one stands in a certain status relationship to another; third, where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; and fourth, where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14703438613582917232&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

14 For criminal liability to be based upon a failure to act, there must be a duty imposed by the law to act, and the person must be physically capable of performing the act. See § 45-2-202, MCA. As a starting point in our analysis, the parties here have identified what is often referred to as "the American bystander rule." This rule imposes no legal duty on a person to rescue or summon aid for another person who is at risk or in danger, even though society recognizes that a moral obligation might exist. This is true even "when that aid can be rendered without danger or inconvenience to" the potential rescuer. Pope v. State (1979), 284 Md. 309, 396 A.2d 1054, 1064 (quoting Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, at 183 (1972)). Thus, an Olympic swimmer may be deemed by the community as a shameful coward, or worse, for not rescuing a drowning child in the neighbor's pool, but she is not a criminal. See LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.3(a) (1986).

¶ 15 But this rule if far from absolute. Professors LaFave and Scott have identified seven common-law exceptions to the American bystander rule: 1) a duty based on a personal relationship, such as parent-child or husband-wife; 2) a duty based on statute; 3) a duty based on contract; 4) a duty based upon voluntary assumption of care; 5) a duty based on creation of the peril; 6) a duty to control the conduct of others; and 7) a duty based on being a landowner. See LaFave & Scott, § 3.3, at 283-289. A breach of one of these legal duties by failing to take action, therefore, may give rise to criminal liability. Our review of the issues presented here can accordingly be narrowed to two of the foregoing exceptions as briefed by the parties and identified by the District Court: 1) a duty based on a personal relationship, and 2) a duty based on creation of the peril.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12318759535516191060&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1