Eighteen-year-old alisha was driving through her neighborhood one afternoon and recognized six-year-old timmy, a member of the caldwell family, who lived a block away from her house. alisha used to babysit for timmy on weekday afternoons until a few months ago, when she started working at a local grocery store. from her car, alisha could see timmy was flailing around in the water next to the dock of maverick pond, the neighborhood's favorite fishing spot. alisha knew that the there was a big drop off there where the water was very deep, well over timmy's head. because she was late for work, she decided to keep driving, thinking that timmy's parents must be close by. she feels terrible later when she discovers that timmy is hospitalized in critical condition after nearly drowning in the pond. did alisha have a legal obligation to come to timmy's aid?

The correct answer is no.

Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, there is no such thing like duty to rescue. 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 but she should have done it nevertheless. 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; i believe the best and correct answer is stronger bonds between the nations of africa;