When Does \x26quot;Failing to Rescue\x26quot; Cross the Legal Line？
In daily life, we advocate for acting bravely for a just cause,but what about the legal status of the opposite act of "failing to rescue someone in mortal danger"? Is it true that all acts of "failing to rescue" do not require assuming legal liability?
Let's delve into relevant legal knowledge through the case of Wang involved in the criminal ruling (2021) Lu 09 Xingzhong No. 250 of the Intermediate People's Court of Tai'an City, Shandong Province.
First, let's review the case. At the end of 2019, Wang and Li got acquainted and had frequent contacts. On the morning of January 29, 2021, after the two met as agreed, Wang drove Li to an underground parking lot. During the sexual intercourse in the car, Li suddenly fell ill, with shortness of breath and then loss of consciousness.
Wang took simple first - aid measures such as artificial respiration and pinching the philtrum, but Li still did not wake up. After that, instead of calling the police or taking Li to the hospital for treatment, Wang drove away from the parking lot with Li and drove along the road. He even turned off Li's mobile phone to prevent her family from contacting her.
After staying outside for about two or three hours, Wang sent Li to the hospital after being persuaded by his relatives, but it was too late. At around 17:00, Li was declared dead after failed rescue efforts. The identification showed that Li died of respiratory and circulatory failure caused by spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, and the actual time of death was about 1 hour before the time of treatment. Finally, the court ruled that Wang constituted the crime of intentional homicide (by omission).
Under normal circumstances, ordinary passers - by have no legally mandated obligation to rescue others. However, in certain specific situations, "failing to rescue someone in mortal danger" can violate the law. China's criminal law theory points out that an omission crime must meet the conditions of "should do, can do, and fail to do". Among them, "should do" emphasizes that the actor has a specific legal obligation to perform a certain positive act. The sources of such obligations mainly include the following:
2. Obligations arising from prior acts: When a person's prior act puts others in a dangerous state, he has the obligation to rescue. Just like in Wang's case, Wang's prior act of having sexual intercourse with Li in the car in the underground parking lot made Wang have the positive obligation to rescue Li who fell into a coma due to a sudden illness.
As a mentally sound adult, Wang should have known that a coma caused by a sudden illness might lead to death. After his initial rescue efforts failed, he should have been more aware that not actively treating Li would have serious consequences. However, Wang, who had the ability to send Li to the hospital for emergency treatment, delayed for a long time, resulting in Li's death due to the failure of timely treatment, which conforms to the constituent element of "failing to do" in an omission crime.
The gist of the judgment:
An omission crime usually presupposes that the actor has a certain special obligation. The sources of obligations for omission crimes include obligations arising from prior acts. In judicial practice, although there is no legal or blood - based obligation of protection and assistance between the defendant and the victim, if both parties carry out specific acts at a specific time and in a private space based on their personal will, they have the obligation to protect each other, that is, when one party is in danger, the other party has the obligation to actively rescue.
Note： We also publishd Chinese version of this article today.
No comments:
Post a Comment