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.
Consent of the governed; john Locke believed that the government was made to serve the people
<span>Cod fishing is no longer allowed in the Atlantic Provinces, if your other options are fishing, aquaculture, and fish processing. Due to the fact that the population of cod has drastically decreased, it is now forbidden to fish cod in these areas. Other fish can still be fished, but not cod. Also, aquaculture refers to various species of fish and plants in the waters, so that cannot be forbidden. And there is no reason to forbid fish processing, it just means to clean the fish so that it can be sold to people and eaten.</span>
Answer:
If the picture answer helps you PLEASE mark me as brainliest