Skip to content

The Good Samaritan Essay

Similar Documents

The Position of the Rescuer and Good Samaritan Liability in Irish Tort Law

...of its origins from the 2009 Law Reform Commission consultation paper which essentially outlined a framework for the drafting of legislation. Furthermore analysing case law and statue from our jurisdiction and abroad, which was applied in the only real substantive case in Ireland to date, O’Neill v Dunnes Stores Ltd To determine the position of the rescuer in Ireland several factors were considered by the LRC such as the moral versus legal question of a duty to intervene, how intervention affects society and with an increasing level of litigation in modern Ireland, how the courts should view subsequent cases for and against Good Samaritans and Voluntary organisations. LRC Consultation Paper The recognition and protection of persons providing voluntary assistance has been addressed by the LRC Consultation Paper on Civil Liability of Good Samaritans and Volunteers, which proposes the introduction of a statute restricting the liability of such persons who intervene as rescuers. The recommendations in the paper essentially aimed to clarify the confusing position of rescuers in Ireland through the implementation of statute. Section 5.01 of the recommendations states “The Commission recommends that there should be no reform of the law to impose a duty on citizens in general” Historically, common law countries have hesitated to a positive duty to intervene, McMahon and Binchy note that common law has been completely opposed to the imposition of affirmative duties, in......

Words: 2468 - Pages: 10

Good Samaritian

...Good Samaritan A Good Samaritan is to help someone. I believe I have a few experiences of being a Good Samaritan just from the job I have and just helping out. I work at Auto Parts and we help anyone who has questions or needs help. For instance we help them with Batteries, Alternators, Diagnostics and almost anything to help them with their car. A day at work to me is helping people save lots of money and getting their car fixed. One day I had a customer ask for a battery. I got them the battery and they asked if I could install it for them. I said “Sure I can do that no problem.” There car was not starting anymore and the person who I was helping was a student at San Marcos State. She said “I really need my car to get to school and there is no other way I can get there because it’s so far.” So I took out her battery, put some special lubricant and terminal washers to help the battery life and defend against corrosion. After I installed the new batter I said “can you start it, to make sure it starts.” The car started and she was so happy that her car was running and was very thankful. Another thing that I do and everyone else I work with is help people with their diagnostics system. If your check engine light is on we offer a code user that is free to use. What it does is reads through the cars computer and pulls codes on what is wrong with the computer. They also have the option to erase the code so the check engine light is not on. We also explain to......

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Good Samaritan Act

...Good Samaritan Act Colorado/Louisiana LaNita D. Scott Afternoon Class February 28, 2013 Good Samaritan Act Colorado/Louisiana The Good Samaritan Act is legal terms in which refers to individuals who in good faith, volunteer to help other individuals in need of medical attention. In return the person giving the help must be responsibly with the injured person life. Each state offer good Samaritans immunity for assisting. For those good Samaritans who negligent cause the injured person more injures they could be held liable for any civil damages. There are individuals in this world that try and help others every day. Then there are others who will not help due to the fact that they are afraid to get into trouble because of these laws. There are several states that have adopted the Good Samaritan Act. Colorado and Louisiana are two that have established these laws within their state. In Louisiana, if an emergency medical technician give their service to help another individual out during an emergency situation and do not arrange for further medical treatment will be liable for any civil damage. Colorado also states, that if a licensed physician and surgeon renders help and it leads up to negligent on the patient, that individual rending the services will be held liable only if that patient is not obligated to be covered by him or her. Louisiana holds everyone liable for their actions no matter what. Whereas, Colorado only hold the individual who is the Good Samaritan ......

Words: 348 - Pages: 2

Good Samaritan Law

...| Good Samaritan Law Definition - A Good Samaritan in legal terms refers to someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. What Is The Good Samaritan Law The "Good Samaritan Law" is the legal term that refers to someone who renders aid in an emergency to an injured person on a voluntary basis. The Good Samaritan laws offers legal protection to the person that gives reasonable assistance to another person who is injured, ill, or otherwise incapacitated. They made this law to encourage people to offer assistance without the fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death (Good Samaritan law, 2009). Most overdoses occur in the presence of other people and take several hours to cause death. However, research finds that in up to half of cases, no one calls for help.  911 calls are also often delayed as witnesses try ineffective methods of reviving people such as slapping them or dousing them with cold water.  The most common reason given for not calling 911 or for delaying help seeking is fear of arrest and prosecution (Szalavitz, 2011). Who Does It Protected Most of the Good Samaritan laws are specifically made for the public and each law protects different individuals. A person will be protected under the Good Samaritan laws as long as he or she has good intentions to aid the victim to the best of his or her ability during a medical emergency.  Under some Good Samaritan Laws, as long as......

Words: 1755 - Pages: 8

Mitchell V Lovington Good Samaritan

...the Good Samaritan Center located in Lovington, New Mexico. While working at the Good Samaritan center, Mitchell was given additional duties of handing out medications. There started to be issues with Mitchell not following the dress code, singing and not wanting to hand out medications. Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) was terminated on June 4, 1974 from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC. for alleged misconduct. June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits and was denied her benefits. July 24 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal. The issue of this case is whether the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct if so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 The term “misconduct” is not defined in unemployment law for New Mexico. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The final decision was to reinstate Mitchells Commission due to the fact that her conduct was never severe enough to utilize the “last straw” doctrine. Using the “last straw” method an employer can rely on the doctrine for terminating an employee, where the termination is justified by a series of incidents of poor performance, followed by a final incident showing a blatant disregard for the employer's interests. In this case the Source: Kaplan University PA205 Unit 3 assignment case Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan center Inc.,1976 Mitchell v. Lovington Good......

Words: 264 - Pages: 2

Mitchell V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 Nm P.2d 696 (1976)

...Unit 4 Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Kaplan University PA 205 Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: This case was a reversed decision by District Court, Bernalillo County, awarding unemployment benefits to a discharged employee.  The denial of benefits was due to employee’s misconduct of insubordination, improper attire, name calling and other employee misconduct that disqualified the employee for unemployment benefits. Issue: Did the employer’s action constitute misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953? Rules: Was there misconduct by the plaintiff and was there cause for disqualification of benefits under. Analysis: After looking at the case, it had appeared that there were many misconduct write ups on Ms. Mitchell and many instances where other employees were mentioned, such as on April 2, 1974, where there was a uniform issue where Ms. Mitchell was not dressed properly. May 24, 1974 Mary Stroope, Carol Skurlock where a comment of race was brought up by Ms. Mitchell about a work assignment. May 15, 1974, and other days where Ms. Mitchell was singing and a complaint by Ms. Betty Clarke, RN. Conclusion: The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated. Analogizing and Distinguishing: The similarities of this case and my client case are they are both Unemployment compensation cases that involve misconduct at the work place where disrespect to co workers is......

Words: 1010 - Pages: 5

Mitchell V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc.

...Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc. Supreme Court of New Mexico 555 P.2D 696. FACTS Plaintiff-appallee represented by Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, and Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque. Defendant-appellant represented by Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lonvington. This appeal comes from the Bernalillo County District Court where the court reversed a decision of the Unemployment Security Commission and awarded benefits to a discharged employee. The ruling of the court is being appealed by the defendant. ISSUE Whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constitute as misconduct thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. RULE The New Mexico Supreme Court adopted the definition of misconduct from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636.640 (1941) … “misconduct” … is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the......

Words: 378 - Pages: 2

Samaritan Law - Uk

...A Good Samaritan law is a law which compels a person to act for another if they are ill, in harm or other peril. The UK is one of the few European countries that have not criminalised failure to act, but instead the courts and some statutes have provided situations whereby liability will be imposed for a failure to act, or an ‘omission’. This assignment will discuss these circumstances and analyse why they exist. The law of England and Wales states that for someone to be found guilty of an offence there are two elements which must be found; these are actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is a criminal act, and coupled with mens rea, ‘the guilty mind’, liability can often be imposed. However actus reus, deceivingly, does not have to be an ‘act’. There are certain circumstances where a failure to act, or an ‘omission’, is enough to place criminal liability. The general rule in English criminal law is that an omission will not result in criminal liability, for example if a by-passer witnesses someone being stabbed, but does not intervene, then the victim dies, they will not be liable, even though they may have reasonably been able to help. This is because there is no ‘constructed situation’ where it says there is a duty to act. However, there are certain situations where liability will be found, because it is expressed in statute, this is called direct liability; where a statute specifically states that there is a duty to act; for example the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.6 which......

Words: 2244 - Pages: 9

Zelma M. Mitchell, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976.

...Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976. Facts:  After being terminated from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Petitioner Zelma Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but was denied by the Unemployment Security Commission due to the nature of her termination, pursuant to § 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. Issue:  The issue is to determine whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 and whether these actions were enough to warrant denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Rule: Though the term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law, the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopts the definition used by The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941). Application:  Based on the newly adopted definition of misconduct, the court holds that Mrs. Mitchell’s inappropriate attire, insubordination, and name calling display unruly conduct and lack of regard for the Center. Conclusion:  The Supreme Court reverses the decision of the district court and reinstates the decision of the Commission, holding that the employee’s misconduct justifies denying unemployment benefits. Table of Authorities Cases Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) 2 Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN......

Words: 262 - Pages: 2

(Case Brief Unit 3 Pa205) Mitchell vs. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976)

...MITCHELL VS. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) FACTS: Zelma Mitchell, appellee was dismissed from her employment at Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., appellant in June 12, 1974. The alleged grounds for her dismissal from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. were misconduct. Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits and was denied unemployment compensation benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. Finding that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts constituted misconduct and disqualified Mrs. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits based on § 59-9-6(b), N.M.S.A.1953. The On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell filed for an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974, Lovington Samaritan Center, Inc. filed an appeal on the decision made by the Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to § 59-9-6(b), N.M.S.A.1953. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven-week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo pursuant of N.M. STAT ANN § 59-9-6. On January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell, from the judgment of the District Court, the Center appeals. ISSUE: The......

Words: 1181 - Pages: 5

Day in the Life Healthcare 'Good Samaritan Case'

...ethics. Criminal law is a system of law concerned with the punishment of those who committed the crimes. I believe in the Good Samaritan Case it is both a criminal and civil case. The case is criminal and civil case. The case is criminal because Broitzman and Larson where both charged for the crimes they committed. This case is also a civil law case because being a nursing home the actions of the girls charged also effected the community in more than just a criminal way. The residents of the nursing home had family members in and they themselves where members of the community. 2.What intentional torts do you think the nursing aides committed? Please give a definition for each intentional tort that you choose with an explination of why you chose that tort. The intentional tort Assault and Battery is the only one that seems to apply. As defined Assault is the threaten of harm, while battery is the actual harm to a person. The girls Broitzman and Larson both got charged with criminal abuse charges. Abuse falls under Assault and Battery with the actual harm to a person. The girls both recieved multiple counts of Abuse due to it being towards more than one resident in the nursing home. 3. Who is ultimately responsible for the supervision of hte nursing aides in this case? Define and identify the doctrine which could be used to find them liable. The Good Samaritan Society is being held responsible in a docrtrine of respondant superior meaning let the master answer. The young......

Words: 629 - Pages: 3

Good Will

...on Kant’s views on good will and moral worth, along with some real life examples, Socrates’s discussion on differences between mere true belief and real knowledge of virtue and several other philosophers’ unique interpretations and related discussions on this topic. Kant makes a clear argument about good will in the very beginning of his book Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. He explicitly states that: “There is no possibility of thinking anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will. (Kant 7)” Kant believes that a good will is always morally good. Therefore, what a good will does is always morally good as well. Also, he obviously takes good will as the only true standard to judge the moral worth of a certain action. He explains that everything that seems to be good by itself actually could only be good if they are driven by a good will; without a good will, these other things might be used to produce negative outcomes. Except for a good will, nothing else would be good simply on its own. For example, loyal soldiers with bravery driven by a good will protect the city and the citizens well, and some of them may even sacrifice their own lives for such honorable aims. But without a good will, bravery can be used by greedy robbers and may lead to terrible outcomes. Also, scientists may use intelligence with a good will to improve our lives in various aspects; without such good will,......

Words: 2916 - Pages: 12

Zelma M. Mitchell, Appellant, V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.,

...Unit 3: Legal Analysis and Writing PA-205 Shannon R. Courson Kaplan University 11/28/15   ZELMA M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Appellee. No. 10847. SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 89 NM 575,555 P. 2d 696 (1976) October 27, 1976, Decided Attorney for the defendant-appellant: Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovingto Attorney for the plaintiff-appellee: Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque Opinion by: Justice Sosa Facts: Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. employed Zelma M. Mitchell on July 4, 1972 in the position of Nurse Aide. After one year of employment with no noted reprimands, additional duties as a relief medications nurse were assigned two days per week. The plaintiff came to work on April 2, 1974, during a Federal inspection, out of uniform. She refused to go home and change, after asked to do so. The following day, the plaintiff arrived at work out of uniform again. On this occasion, she did go home to change after asked to do so. According to Betty Clarke, R.N., on May 15, 1972, in addition to other days, the plaintiff was obstinate and sang while dispensing medications. Clarke reported this behavior to Charge Nurse Stroope. On May 24, 1974, the plaintiff refused to give out medications as instructed by Ms. Stroope. The plaintiff made insulting remarks about the Nurse Aide, Carol Scurlock and Ms. Stroope on that day. Between May 24, 1974 and June 4, 1974,......

Words: 650 - Pages: 3

Mitchell V. Lovington Good Samaritan

...Plaintiff (Mrs. Mitchell) was terminated from her job at Lovington good Samaritan Center, Inc., due to alleged misconduct. Plaintiff then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. Due to the finding from the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission Mrs. Mitchell was denied benefits for seven weeks. Plaintiff appealed the decision and was granted her money. The Unemployment center appealed that ruling and the first ruling went back into effect. Mrs. Mitchell appealed that ruling applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision. The Plaintiff’s money was reinstated to her by the District Court. Mrs. Mitchell was terminated from her job on June 4, 1974. On April 2 and April 3, 1974, Plaintiff went to work out of uniform. The first day she was told to go home and change she refused to do so, however, on the second day she did as she was told. Then on May 15, 1974, the plaintiff was singing while working, it was reported as unethical and time- consuming. Another incident happened on May 24, 1974. Mrs. Mitchell was told to change from medications to the floor routine. She was told why she was being switched but she was not co-operative. From that day unit June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell refused to do her job. On June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell went to work on time, and started filling out her time card. She filled it out for the whole hour shift. When a supervisor asked her about it she told him she was planning on working all 8 hours. He said something else and she......

Words: 307 - Pages: 2

The Good Samaritan

...The Good Samaritan Sometimes in life you will meet someone who is in need of your help. In some cases you might not even know the person; you just happen to be the one in a million who is at the right place at the right time. Most likely you will try to figure out at once how you might possibly be able to help the person in need. Concerning the level of the needed help you will find the answer more or less simple, but nonetheless it is quite a decision to let someone into your life in order to help them. Your decision may be influenced by your principles, moral and conscience, and in some cases you know that whatever you decide to do the decision will probably affect somebody’s life for ages if not the rest of their life. Steward Dunlop’s short-story “The Good Samaritan” takes up the theme of being helpful to a person in need as the narrator finds herself in this particular kind of situation when she meets Laylor in a lavatory of the National Portrait Gallery. She is a Londoner. This being the first thing she tells about herself means that obviously it is a rather central part of her character. By stamping herself as a characteristic Londoner she implies that she is quite withdrawn from her surroundings: “I am not in the habit of making friends of strangers. I’m a Londoner. Not even little grey-haired old ladies passing comment on the weather can shame a response from me. I’m a Londoner – aloof sweats from my pores.” (p.1 l.l.1-3) She even repeats that she is a Londoner to......

Words: 1163 - Pages: 5

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

840 WordsFeb 16th, 20183 Pages

Parables are drawn from nature or common life and are both vivid and strange (Dodd, 1961 in Dowling, 2010, p. 20). They leave the mind in “sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought” (Dodd, 1961 in Dowling, 2010, p. 20). In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a lawyer who aims to challenge Jesus and clarify things for himself, asks Jesus a number of questions. The lawyer asks Jesus a key question, “Who is my neighbour?” (Luke 10:29). Jesus’ response to this reveals the purpose of the parable as a whole as it radically reshapes the traditional Jewish understanding of the Law (Collins, 2010, p.112). In response to the lawyer’s question, Jesus tells him the parable of the Good Samaritan. This essay will explore the genre and the didactic purpose of this parable and attempt to explain how the parable unpacks the Kingdom of God.

Firstly, this essay will place more emphasis on the social context of the parable. The Good Samaritan is a parable targeted at a Jewish audience. The oil and wine reflects the Samaritan situation in the first century CE (Knowles, 2004, p. 150). As we know from Josephus, when venturing outside their own communities, the Essenes took with them nothing but their white garments, more valuable than weaponry (Knowles, 2004, p.155). Luke specifies only that the man is beaten and robbed of his garments before being left for dead (Knowles, 2004, p. 155). The man’s clothing may have…

Show More