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.
Answer:
The correct answers are:
A. the right to privacy
and
C. the right to victims of crimes
Explanation:
Just finished the quiz on Edge nuity!
The Acts. In October of 1651, the English Parliament passed its Navigation Acts of 1651. These acts were designed to tighten the government's control over trade between England, its colonies, and the rest of the world. ... England's American colonies could only export their goods in English ships.
Hope this answers your question!
It was my pleasure assisting you.
Answer:
1. I think is "all of the above"
2. is Emperor
