a police man isnt obliged to help put out a burning house(mainly due to lack of training to do so safely), but he certaintly shouldnt stand thier laughing going 'haha your house is on fire,... did some one leave the toaster on, silly silly'.
Noone can be liable for a pure omission. So no, even if a policeman were to stand there laughing, he would not liable. Infact, a fireman could do the same and still wouldn't be liable in negligence. There is only a positive duty to ensure that someone doesnt make the situation*worse* by a positive act.
Example fail.
Isn't there a law in the UK making it obligated to help people in case of an emergency (e.g. if you can swim, and some little kid falls into a lake and is about to drown, aren't you legally obligated to jump in and save the kid, and are liable if he drowns, and it's proven that there was no reason for you not to save the kid)?
(Obviously without making the situation worse or putting yourself in danger)
I think that’s in French law? Where the principle is the "good Samaritan rule"? I can’t remember. Well I know its more popular on the continent.
But the English doesn't recognise that as a legal principle. If a little kid is drowning a stranger can walk on by and incur no liability. The reasoning is that the child would have drowned regardless, and that might not have been there to save him.
However this only extends to situations where there is prior relationship, if the kid drowning happens to be under your responsibility, for example, you are the parent yeah you have to do something. Or if you push them in, that creates a link.
The English rules in this circumstance are similar to the American rules, where its essentially every man for themselves.
/off topic
=P
