It's not trivial, dunno about US, but in many (developed) countries around world not providing help to someone (passing around car crash without stopping, if you don't see anyone providing help) has legal implications.
I think it is a matter of degree. Here - not sure how this is handled in other countries - it is a crime if you come across an accident and do not attempt to help. And to me this is obviously not only the right thing to do because it is required by law but because there is a moral obligation to do so.
Nobody has to enter a burning car and risk his life but at least you have to call the emergency service or do whatever you can reasonably do to help. And it really doesn't matter whether you are doing your work delivering packages, whether the accident was the fault of the driver because he was driving intoxicated, if somebody else could also help or whatnot.
Discovering a vulnerability is of cause different in most respects - the danger is less imminent, the vendor may have a larger responsibility and so on. But the basic structure is the same - more or less by accident you end up in a situation where there is a danger and you are in the position to help to make the outcome probably better.
So I think one can not simply dismiss that there might be a moral obligation to disclose a vulnerability to the vendor on just the structure of the situation, one has to either argue that there is also no moral obligation in the accident scenario or argue that the details are sufficiently different that a different action - or no action in this specific case - is the morally correct or at least an morally acceptable action.
To be fair, all the cases that you mentioned are those where where the police and the system do not look for someone to blame.
The article doesn't disagree with you:
> what safety campaigner Piyush Tewari saw wasn't a lack of compassion but an entire system stacked against helping road victims.
...
> He contrasts the reluctance of passers-by to help victims of road accidents with their response to train crashes or bombs blasts.
In these cases, he says, "before the police or media arrives everybody's been moved to hospital".
There's also very important information in the article about new guidelines published by the supreme court of India to protect good samaritans.
By your argument, should we not also abolish crimes such as manslaughter and causing death by careless driving, not permit any legal actions based on negligence, and generally absolve everyone of any responsibility for their actions even if those actions are both harmful and avoidable provided that they are not deliberate?
If that is your position, then we have very different ethics here.
> This was not a serious accident
Several people in this discussion seem to bring that up, but as far as I can see we don't know either way. It is certainly possible that the same action could have caused loss of much personal data of sentimental and/or direct financial value, cut off communications at an important moment with all kinds of serious consequences, left a driver stranded with no navigation to get them back to familiar territory, etc. Even if that didn't happen in this particular case, it was pure luck.
That’s meaningless if the law specifically says the driver is responsible. If you’re behind the wheel you’re responsible for where the car goes. It’s that simple.
If you choose to use some kind of driver assist to get you there that’s a decision you as the driver made and you are responsible for the consequences of that.
Let's put aside the "who's paying for the ER" argument. A driver that loses control of the car trying to brace oneself or restrain a passenger that isn't wearing a seat belt can increase the severity of an accident for other people, too. A car crash victim that falls on to the street suddenly becomes a hazard to other vehicles, too.
>In Australia, you stay, you help the victim, you report the accident. That's the law.
I don't think Law is much different in any country, maybe in some countries it is not respected due to the possibilities of retribution/extortion you mention.
That could quickly backfire should it turn out you decided to drive someone to the hospital yourself in spite of having been found not to be trusted with steering a vehicle, and not having called professional help and first-aid on-the-spot, i.e. called the ambulance as you should have done. Assault / injury and failure to render assistance are the terms here.
Pretty common around the world, especially when you have universal health care.
1) you’ve committed a traffic violation.
2) you’ve damaged property and caused a casualty even if it’s only one being yourself.
You won’t always end up in court but if the accident was due to a a severe failure on your part (and wasn’t unavoidable) for example drunk driving or using a cell phone it doesn’t matter if you hit a tree or another car as far as the law goes.
That it can't be assumed to be a fait accompli that "negligence" or vehicular homicide is involved in the scenario of anyone leaving the scene of an accident.
That it can't be assumed to be a fait accompli that "negligence" or vehicular homicide is involved in the scenario of anyone leaving the scene of an accident.
reply