assistance, unless such efforts would endanger the rescuer or interfere with important duties owed to others"(Silver 3). Rendering assistance to someone in peril in Vermont, will grant immunity so long as there was no gross negligence. In comparison to Vermont's law, Minnesota's law, passed in 1983, also requires bystanders to render assistance. In Minnesota, you have a duty to rescue but only if you are at the scene of the crime. Also, in Minnesota, your duty is not put off, if there is already someone rendering aid. Both states punish those who fail to abide by these laws through fines of no more than one hundred dollars.In more extreme cases, foreign law, especially in the western countries such as, France, Italy, Russia, and Japan the sanctions get worse. Actual imprisonment when bystanders fail to render assistance can be imposed. In France, the law requires four elements to be present before imposing the sanction on the bystander. According to an article written by Peter M. Agulnick and Heidi V. Rivkin the four elements that must be present are: "There must be: 1) an endangered person; 2) knowledge of the existence of the endangered person; 3) the ability to rescue the endangered person; 4) an absence of danger to the rescuer or others"(8).The statutes from these countries are very similar to those from Vermont and Minnesota. However, these four elements come into play in America only when the bystander is in one of the situations that were described previously, otherwise they would not be held liable for their failure to assist.IV.MoralityThe most obvious issue that must be addressed when examining the duty to rescue as a legal obligation would be the morality involved in making such a decision. As the reactions to the case histories in section II illustrate, in situations where there is a failure to rescue a person by a bystander there is usually "moral outrage." What accounts for this outrage must weigh-in heavily w...
