The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
The exchange rate expresses <span>the value of one nation’s currency in terms of another nation’s currency.
</span>
Answer: True
Explanation:
In Kyllo v. United States (2001), a 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Court held that the Government used a device that is not in public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion hence the surveillance is a 'search' and is unreasonable without a warrant.
One reason is because they were trying to become more "developed" like other cities who would export products such as fish, sugar, & furs.
