For laws pertaining to legal requirements at the scene of an emergency, one should be familiar with a state’s Good Samaritan statutes. In the state of Nebraska, “No person who renders emergency care at the scene of an accident or other emergency gratuitously, shall be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for medical treatment or care for the injured person” (N.R.S. §25-21,186). The bystanders, in their mocking of the drowning person, had failed to contact emergency services in a timely manner. However, they are protected from any civil damages resulting from their failure to arrange for emergency care,
…show more content…
Depending on the extent to which the victim was mocked and ridiculed during and leading up to the drowning, one could potentially argue for involuntary manslaughter charges on some of the bystanders. In the case of Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, 474 Mass. 624 (2016), Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging and instructing her boyfriend to kill himself. There are some problems with applying this case to Nebraska law, however. First of all, the coercion took place over several weeks preceding the suicide and was much more in-depth than simply “mocking and ridiculing” the victim. Carter helped her boyfriend decide on the method for committing suicide and persuaded him to complete the suicide, even when he had second thoughts about following through with it. Secondly, even if similar circumstances surrounded the drowning case, the involuntary manslaughter laws for Massachusetts differ from those of Nebraska. According to the Massachusetts case, involuntary manslaughter can be proven under “wanton or reckless conduct” or “wanton or reckless failure to act” (2016). In Nebraska, involuntary manslaughter is defined as “killing without intent and without provocation, while committing an unlawful act” (N.R.S. §28-305). It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove involuntary manslaughter in the drowning case under Nebraska law, given the fact that the
Depending on the extent to which the victim was mocked and ridiculed during and leading up to the drowning, one could potentially argue for involuntary manslaughter charges on some of the bystanders. In the case of Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, 474 Mass. 624 (2016), Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging and instructing her boyfriend to kill himself. There are some problems with applying this case to Nebraska law, however. First of all, the coercion took place over several weeks preceding the suicide and was much more in-depth than simply “mocking and ridiculing” the victim. Carter helped her boyfriend decide on the method for committing suicide and persuaded him to complete the suicide, even when he had second thoughts about following through with it. Secondly, even if similar circumstances surrounded the drowning case, the involuntary manslaughter laws for Massachusetts differ from those of Nebraska. According to the Massachusetts case, involuntary manslaughter can be proven under “wanton or reckless conduct” or “wanton or reckless failure to act” (2016). In Nebraska, involuntary manslaughter is defined as “killing without intent and without provocation, while committing an unlawful act” (N.R.S. §28-305). It would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove involuntary manslaughter in the drowning case under Nebraska law, given the fact that the