Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T21:49:13.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Good Samaritan: Jewish and American Legal Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Anne Cucchiara Besser  and
Kalman J. Kaplan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The perspectives of Jewish law and Anglo-American law are compared with regard to good Samaritan responses to difficulty in three areas: a) return of lost property, b) rendering aid, and c) coming to the rescue of someone in danger. With regard to good Samaritan expectations for return of lost property, the two systems seem similar. However, a comparison of Jewish and American law with respect to rendering aid and coming to the rescue of someone in danger demonstrates that Jewish law encourages a duty to help in a manner unusual under Anglo-American common law. Exceptions in case law and statutory developments are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 193 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Latane, Bibb and Nida, Steve, Ten Years of Research on Group Size and Helping, 89 Psych Bulletin 308 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Latane, Bibb and Darley, John M., Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies, 10 J Personality & Soc Psych 215 (1968)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

3. Latane, Bibb and Rodin, Judith, A Lady in Distress: Inhibiting Effects of Friends and Strangers on Bystander Intervention, 5 J Exp Soc Psych 189 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Darley, John M. and Latane, Bibb, Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility, 8 J Personality & Soc Psych 377 (1968)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

5. Eagly, Alice H. and Steffen, Valerie J., Gender and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature, 100 Psych Bulletin 309 (1986)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

6. Karabenick, Stuart A., et al, Relation of Political Affiliation to Helping Behavior on Election Day, November 7, 1972, 91 J Soc Psych 223 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. Bickman, Leonard, Interpersonal Influence and the Reporting of a Crime, 5 Personality & Soc Psych Bulletin 32 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Katzev, Richard, et al, The Effect of Reprimanding Transgressions on Subsequent Helping Behavior: Two Field Experiments, 4 Personality & Soc Psych Bulletin 326 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Friedrich, Lynette K. and Stein, Aletha H., Aggressive and Prosocial Television Programs and the Natural Behavior of Preschool Children, 38 Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development No. 4, serial no 151 (1973)Google ScholarPubMed.

10. Exodus 123:16.

11. M. Avot 6:2.

12. Kiddushin 31a, Abodah Zarah 3a, Baba Kamma 38a, 87a.

13. Tosafot, “Gadol” Kiddushin 31a.

14. Gen. 1:27; Abot 111:14; Maimonides, Yesode ha-Torah 4.8.

15. Psalms 8:6-10; Exodus Rabbah 32.1; Maimonides, Yesode ha-Torah 3.9.

16. Gen. 6:5, 8:2.

17. Experience taught the Rabbis the maxim: “Pray for the welfare of your government, were it not for the fear of the rulers, every man would devour his fellow alive.” Avot 111:2. As a large fish would devour a small fish so would man do, were he not restrained by government. Abodah Zarah 4a; Rashi Betsah 23b. Man can curb and conquer the evil tendencies in him only by submitting to the discipline of the law.

Abodah Zarah 5b.

18. Deut. 30.19.

19. Olmstead v United States, 277 US 438, 478 (1928)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).

20. Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford U Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

21. It should be remembered that, although common law is the foundation upon which the Anglo-American system is built, statutory additions change, mold, and expand the law as it evolves. As society grows and changes, the legal system is able to adapt to these needs due to its flexibility. Laws are statements of public policy and opinion as well as instruments for courts to implement and police to enforce. Whether or not the law leads to direct, individual changes of heart, it at least continues to serve the public enunciation of what ought to be done and a public denunciation of what is considered reprehensible. Likewise, moral obligations can be reflected in legal responsibility and have been applied in the areas of obscenity, prostitution, rape, bigamy, and even murder. See Waller, Louis, Rescue and the Common Law: England and Australia, in Ratcliffe, James, ed, The Good Samaritan and the Law 141 (Anchor Books, 1966)Google Scholar.

22. M. Baba Kama 6:4; Baba Kama 55b; and codes.

23. Tosefta, Baba Kama 6:16-17.

24. Baba Metzia 24B and 30; Baba Kama 99b. An entire codex of such situations where “his case is passed on for divine judgment” is found in Tosefta, Baba Kamma 6:16-17.

25. Baba Kama 31b.

26. Baba Kama 81a.

27. Bridges v Hawkesworth, 7 Eng Law & Eq R 424 (1851); Armory v Delamire, 1 Strange's Reports 505 (King's Bench 1722); see Parsons, Theophilus, 2 Law of Contracts ch 2 (William S. Hein, 1980)Google Scholar.

28. Anderson v Gouldberg, 53 NW 636 (Minn 1892).

29. 33 A 1055 (Ct Chane NJ 1896).

30. Id at 1056-57.

31. Exodus 23:4; Baba Metzia 32a.

32. Deut. 22:1.

33. Bridges v Hawkesworth, 7 Eng Law & Eq R 424 (1851).

34. McAvoy v Medina, 93 Mass (11 Allen) 548 (1866).

35. Baba Metzia 21a.

36. Deut. 22:3.

37. Baba Kamma 66a.

38. Furthermore, if property is taken and not returned, then a positive commandment (Exodus 23:4) and two negative commandments—”Thou mayest not hide thyself” (Deut. 22:3), and “Thou shalt not rob” (Lev. 19:13) are transgressed.

39. Baba Metzia 21a.

40. Blackstone, William, 2 Commentaries on the Laws of England 409–10 (Clarendon Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

41. M. Baba Kamma 10:2; Tosefta, Baba Metzia 2:2; Jerusalem Talmud, Baba Kamma 10:2.

42. Deut. 22:2.

43. This would be similar to a priest (kohen) who sees lost property in a cemetery. To retrieve the article, he would have to disregard a positive commandment—“They shall be holy” (Lev. 21:6) and transgress a negative commandment—“He shall not defile himself, being a chief man amongst his people” (Lev. 21:4). A positive commandment cannot supersede both a positive and a negative commandment.

44. Baba Metzia 33a.

45. Deut. 22:1, 23:4.

46. Tosefta, Baba Kamma 58a.

47. M. Baba Kamma 10:4.

48. Deut. 22:3.

49. This prohibition against contact with certain groups may explain Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) in which a Kohen (priest) and a Levite are described as not helping a stranger on a roadside. The stranger is not identified and may have been a heathen— contact generally prohibited, and perhaps appeared dead—another type of prohibited contact between a Kohen and corpses in general. See note 42.

50. M. Baba Metzia 2:1.

51. McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated, Personal Property Law §§ 251 et seq (West, 1992)Google Scholar.

52. Kubli v Rosetti, 315 NE2d 167 (Ct App NY 1974).

53. Hurley v City of Niagara Falls, 254 NE2d 917 (Ct App NY 1969).

54. Exodus 23:5; Deut. 22:4; Baba Metzia 32a-33a.

55. M. Baba Metzia 2:10.

56. Exodus 23:5.

57. Deut. 22:4.

58. Maimonides, Moses, Murder and the Preservation of Life 13:1Google Scholar.

59. Id at 13:3.

60. Exodus 23:5.

61. Lev. 19:17.

62. Maimonides, , Murder and the Preservation of Life 13:6 (cited in note 57)Google Scholar.

63. Exodus 23:4.

64. Exodus 23:5.

65. Lev. 21:1.

66. Deut. 22:4 (emphasis added).

67. Maimonides, , Murder and the Preservation of Life 13:6 (cited in note 57)Google Scholar.

68. M. Baba Metzia 2:9; Yad, Gezelah 12:4; Shulhan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat 265:1; Tur Hoshen Mishpat 272:2.

69. 190 Cal Rptr 310, 141 Cal App 3d 443 (1983).

70. Id at 317.

71. Id at 314.

72. Id at 315.

73. Id at 318.

74. See, for example, Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 13-2403 (1989); Del Code Ann tit 11, § 1241 (1987); Ill Ann Stat ch 38, § 31-8 (Smifh-Hurd 1977). See generally Krause, Floyd, Legislation Note, Criminal Law—Requiring Citizens to Aid a Peace Officer, 14 De Paul L Rev 159 (1964)Google Scholar. Forty-six states have provisions requiring citizens to come to the aid of a police officer on his request; forty-two states impose sanctions for failure to do so. Id at 160-61.

75. See a description of the New Bedford rape case in Clendenin, , Barroom Rape Shames Town of Proud Heritage, NY Times, 03 17, 1983, at A16, col 1Google Scholar; see also Cal Penal Code § 11166.5 (West Supp 1993)(reporting child abuse), and Ohio Rev Code Ann § 2921.22 (Page 1992)(reporting gunshot or stab wounds).

76. Lafave, Wayne R. and Scott, Austin W., Handbook on Criminal Law § 11, at 84 (West, 1972)Google Scholar.

77. RI Gen L § 11-37-3.2 (1992).

78. Frankel, Lionel H., Criminal Omissions: A Legal Microcosm, 11 Wayne L Rev 367, 426 (1965)Google Scholar.

79. See LaFave, and Scott, , Criminal Law at 87–88 (cited in note 75)Google Scholar.

80. Kiesel, Diane, Who Saw This Happen? 69 ABAJ 1208 (03 1983)Google Scholar.

81. See LaFave, and Scott, , Criminal Law at § 63, 498–501 (cited in note 75)Google Scholar.

82. Lev. 19:16.

83. Sanhedrin 73a; Piskei ha-Rosh 8:2; Shulkhan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat 426:1, and Siftei Kohen ad loc.

84. Torcia, Charles, ed, 2Wharton's Criminal Law § 172 (Lawyer's Co-op, Supp 1992)Google Scholar.

85. LaFave, and Scott, , Criminal Law at § 26 (cited in note 75)Google Scholar.

86. Keeton, W. Page, ed, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 56 (West, 1984)Google Scholar.

87. Jones v State, 43 NE2d 1017 (Ind 1942).

88. Gibson v Commonwealth, 50 SW 532 (Ky 1899).

89. 44 A 809 (NH 1898).

90. Keeton, W. Page, ed, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 340–43 (West, 4th ed 1971)Google Scholar.

91. Bohlen, Francis H., The Moral Duty to Aid Others as a Basis of Tort Liability, 56 U Pa L Rev 217 (1908)Google Scholar.

92. Minn Stat § 604.05, Subd 1 (1992); Vt Stat tit 12, § 519(a) (1973, Supp 1992).

93. Vt Stat tit 12, § 519(a) (1973, Supp 1992).

94. Minn Stat § 604.05, Subd 1 (1992).

95. Minn Stat § 604.05, Subd 1 (1992); Vt Stat tit 12, § 519(a) (1973, Supp 1992).

96. Minn Stat § 604.05, Subd 2 (1992); Vt Stat tit 12, § 519(b) (1973, Supp 1992).

97. Habeeb, W. R., Annotation, Construction of “Good Samaritan” Statute Excusing from Civil Liability One Rendering Care in Emergency, 39 ALR3d 222 (1971)Google Scholar; Helminski, Frank, Note, Good Samaritan Statutes: Time for Uniformity, 27 Wayne L Rev 217 (1980)Google Scholar.

98. Sanhedrin 73a; Piskei ha-Rosh 8:2; Shulkhan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat 426:1, and Siftei Kohen ad loc.

99. Gen. 9:6.

100. Lev. 19:16.

101. Sanhedrin 73a.

102. Ala Code § 13A-3-23 (1979, Supp 1981); Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 13-406 (1978, Supp 1981); Ark Stat Ann § 41-507 (1977, Supp 1981); Colo Rev Stat § 18-1-704 (1973, Supp 1981); Conn Gen Stat § 53A-19 (1958, Supp 1981); Del Code Ann tit 11, § 465 (1974); Ga Code Ann § 26-902 (1977, Supp 1981); Haw Rev Stat § 703-305 (1976); 111 Ann Stat ch 38, § 7-1 (Smith-Hurd 1972, Supp 1981); Ind Code Ann § 35-41-3-2 (Burns 1979, Supp 1981); Iowa Code Ann § 704-3 (West 1979, Supp 1981); La Rev Stat Ann § 14.22 (West 1974, Supp 1982); Me Rev Stat Ann tit 17-A § 108 (1980); Miss Code Ann § 97-3-15 (1981); Pa Stat Ann tit 18, CPSA § 506 (Purdon 1973, Supp 1981); Tex Penal Code § 9-33 (Vernon 1974, Supp 1982); Wis Stat Ann § 939.48 (West 1958, Supp 1981).

103. State v Fair, 211 A2d 359, 367 (NJ 1965); State v Gelinas, 417 A2d 1385 (RI 1980).

104. Model Penal Code § 3.05, comment at 32 (1958).

105. Moore v State, 219 P 175, 178 (Ok 1923).

106. Model Penal Code § 3.05 (1962).

107. State v Fair, 211 A2d 359, 367 (NJ 1965).

108. People v Main, 59 NE 696 (NY 1901).

109. Maimonides, , Murder and the Preservation of Life 1:13 (cited in note 57)Google Scholar.

110. Sanhedrin 74, Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 8.9.

111. Sanhedrin 72b.

112. Maimonides, , Murder and the Preservation of Life 1:16 (cited in note 57)Google Scholar.

113. Lev. 19:16.

114. Deut. 25:12.

115. Tur Yoreh Deah 336.

116. Tosefta, Baba Kamma 9:3.

117. Num. 3:5; Deut. 19:9.

118. Colo Rev Stat § 18-8-115 (1973, Supp 1982).

119. See note 74.

120. RI Gen L § 11-37-3.3 (Supp 1992).

121. Maimonides, Moses, Commentaries to Mishnan Makkot 3:1Google Scholar.

122. Temurah 4a.

123. Deut. 25:2; M. Makkot 3:11.

124. Deut. 25:1.

125. Ibn Ezra, Deut. 25:1.

126. Makkot 2b.

127. Maimonides Yad Sanhedrin 17:2.

128. M. Makkot 1:2; Makkot 4b; Ketubot 32a.

129. M. Makkot 3:4; M. Hullin 12:4.

130. The Samaritans, in contrast, were seen as schismatic to mainstream Judaism. John 4:9. They were noteworthy for their lack of welcome to all Jews including Jesus and his disciples. Luke 9:52-54. Thus, it seems quite strange that it is the Samaritan rather than the Jew who is given as an example of neighborliness. In reality, Jewish law's insistence on bystander intervention pushes toward being a “good Jew.” See also notes 42 and 48.

131. Maimonides, , Murder and the Preservation of Life 5:1 (cited in note 57)Google Scholar.

132. But see Kirschenbaum, Aaron, The Good Samaritan and Jewish Law, Dine Israel 7–85 (1976)Google Scholar.

133. But see Keeton, , ed, The Law of Torts § 56 (cited in note 85)Google Scholar.