Tunisan Nadar Khiari, 28, will soon be back on his way to Tunisia and should consider himself fortunate that he avoided a longer stay in Sweden after an despicable crime caught on camera. Khiari was waiting for a train when he saw a drunk man fall on to the train tracks. At first, the video below suggests that Khiari is coming to the man’s aid. Instead, Khiari jumps down and robs the unconscious man and leaves him on the tracks where the man is struck and lost his foot (but miraculously survived).
Unlike many countries, Sweden does not have a good Samaritan law requiring either low-risk rescue (which might not be the case in jumping on to train tracks) or, more importantly, alerting police or authorities to someone in peril. In that sense, Sweden follows the same approach as the United States with a “no duty to rescue rule.” Indeed, we have had such cases on train tracks involving station employees.
Given the lack of a rescue rule, Swedish court ordered Nadar Khiari to pay just $1,800 in damages to his victim and ordered him to be deported after serving his 1 1/2 year sentence. It is a pretty light sentence given the fact that he robbed a helpless man and left him to die. It is particularly light given that fact that Khiari was also convicted of an earlier theft.
Khiari is one of those people who sees suffering and wants to benefit from it. He stole the man’s cellphone, a silver case and a gold necklace.
In the United States, the no duty rule was the basis for the famous ruling in Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959) where a man watched another man drown without taking any efforts to assist him. Even though Bigan dared Yania to jump into the hole full of water, the court found that this made no difference since these taunts were “directed to an adult in full possession of all his mental faculties constitutes actionable negligence is not only without precedent but completely without merit.” On the rule itself, the Court wrote:
Lastly, it is urged that Bigan failed to take the necessary steps to rescue Yania from the water. The mere fact that Bigan saw Yania in a position of peril in the water imposed upon him no legal, although a moral, obligation or duty to go to his rescue unless Bigan was legally responsible, in whole or in part, for placing Yania in the perilous position: Restatement, Torts, § 314. Cf: Restatement, Torts, § 322. The language of this Court in Brown v. French, 104 Pa. 604, 607, 608, is apt: “If it appeared that the deceased, by his own carelessness, contributed in any degree to the accident which caused the loss of his life, the defendants ought not to have been held to answer for the consequences resulting from that accident. … He voluntarily placed himself in the way of danger, and his death was the result of his own act. … That his undertaking was an exceedingly reckless and dangerous one, the event proves, but there was no one to blame for it but himself. He had the right to try the experiment, obviously dangerous as it was, but then also upon him rested the consequences of that experiment, and upon no one else; he may have been, and probably was, ignorant of the risk which he was taking upon himself, or knowing it, and trusting to his own skill, he may have regarded it as easily superable. But in either case, the result of his ignorance, or of his mistake, must rest with himself – and cannot be charged to the defendants”. The complaint does not aver any facts which impose upon Bigan legal responsibility for placing Yania in the dangerous position in the water and, absent such legal responsibility, the law imposes on Bigan no duty of rescue.
Recognizing that the deceased Yania is entitled to the benefit of the presumption that he was exercising due care and extending to appellant the benefit of every well pleaded fact in this complaint and the fair inferences arising therefrom, yet we can reach but one conclusion: that Yania, a reasonable and prudent adult in full possession of all his mental faculties, undertook to perform an act which he knew or should have known was attended with more or less peril and it was the performance of that act and not any conduct upon Bigan’s part which caused his unfortunate death.
Of course, Bigan did not first rob Yania before he slipped beneath the water. The Swedish case however highlights the distinction between low cost and high cost rescues. Judge Richard Posner, one of the most important names in the law and economics movement, has written that it would be efficient for the United States to modify its common law rule to require low cost rescues. Such rescues, including calling the police, can avoid huge costs (as here) at little cost. This cost differential supports what Posner says is the economics of altruism. Other writers like Leslie Bender from a feminist perspective have also criticized the “no duty to rescue” rule.
Source: National Post
This brings the Hart/Devlin debate to mind, regarding the legal enforcement of morals.
It also, though, puts in sharp relief the contradictory claims of most western societies and legal systems: private property is a myth, and government is responsible, first, to keep you safe and, in the event one stumbles into danger/want/misfortune, to relieve the poor fellow of the same.
“You didn’t make that” ultimately refers to money, to which the state, through ballot boxes, exerts a first claim. If the robber in this case injured anyone by his theft, it was Sweden’s internal revenue apparatus.
As for the fellow’s plight on the tracks (to paraphrase Scrooge), “Are there no police, no transit workers?” After all, it was on the backs of these and so many others that the tracks, the train, the people’s fare money, medical technology, food (and the vitality wherewith to rescue the poor fellow) were made: it is no individual’s duty to help him.
Or, we can return to the individual, and charge him with as much responsibility as we credit him for his conduct/achievements.
You are a bit off-track here JT. The jerk robbed a man in peril. All this duty to save crap is an aside. Once he touched him he had a duty to move him off the track. It is called the Swedish Track Doctrine and has been around for as long as there have been railroads in Sweden. They deported him because they wanted to punish his home country with his presence. He is a repeat offfender as evidenced by the fact that every time you hit the start button on that screen up there he does it again. Res ipsa.
“Khiari is one of those people who sees suffering and wants to benefit from it.”
A politician?
They got it…. I want it….. It’s mine….. Koch brothers handbook…
Creep……
did the guy pull him out of the way? so that he only lost a foot. what is not seen? Just because a guy robs you doesnt mean he isnt trying to help you. Look at DC and politicians.
Anonymously Yours – And your problem with, “mine,” is? Isn’t the food stamp that someone gets at the end of the month, “theirs,” too? And if what isn’t the Koch bros. theirs, why should the food stamp recipient’s be his?
Or do we have a sliding schedule of property rights? If you have more than “x,” it isn’t yours; but, if you have less than “y,” it is?
*cough*cough*cough*troll*cough*cough*cough
enoch:
definitely a sliding scale. albeit with a very low threshold.
A fitting metaphor for the new nature of government that was expected.
And Bron hits at the bait.
Other than the heroes of the greedy, the Kochs, being used as an example of greed by AY? Property rights have got squat to do with the situation presented in this article other than the victim was not just abandoned in imminent danger, but robbed by a scumbag. It’s a big leap from that to the “what about my (absolute) property rights!” whining.
I’m just sayin’.
Gene H:
property rights should be sacred, not absolute.
I would have thought you would know that.
OED defines sacred as
sacred /ˈseɪkrɪd/, adj.,
:connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration
So to an Objectivist, sacred might be the right word choice. Unfortunately, the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause keeps them from forcing their religious views on others via the force of law. But if you have no issue with property rights not being absolute? Well then, you’re in luck, because they aren’t according to the Constitution and the relevant jurisprudence.
None of which still is related to the issue presented by this column except in the very most tangential way which is primarily Good Samaritan laws.
Merriam Webster online:
5b : highly valued and important
Bron – That brings me back to the notion of objective rights. If it is okay to premise a right one some trope, what not every and any trope? If we can abridge some rights of the wealthy – because they are wealthy – why not all rights? And if because of wealth, why not because of skin color, gender…whatever?
By what principle can we decide what tropes we may abridge rights on the basis of, and those we cannot…except “majority rule,” and history has given us far too many examples of where that can lead.
None of which still is related to the issue presented by this column except in the very most tangential way which is primarily Good Samaritan laws.
enoch:
the founders decided that property rights are not absolute otherwise they would not have allowed for taking for the public good. in their defense they never imagined that a town would take a persons property to give to another private entity. And they probably figured that government would give fair compensation and that elected officials would not use their office to gain from condemnations of land or relocation of roads, etc.
AY:
entered property rights into the discussion, take it up with him.
A professor of mine once remarked that I have an obsession with consistency. In the case of this blog, I am struck by the inconsistencies involved in pretending anyone in most western cultures/legal systems can be “robbed,” given that there is no so-called private property that a majority can’t take for itself or any other on a whim; and the notion that an individual can be held legally responsible for the life of someone else, but the law cannot hold him culpable for the support and preservation of his own life.
Frankly, I find the contradictions bordering on the insane.
Bron,
AY mentioned the Koch Bros as exemplars for uncontrolled greed. Nothing wrong with that because that is what they are as demonstrated by their actions: venal and amoral. I know this makes them saintly to the property rights uber alles crowd who mistakenly think Locke’s language is in the Constitution (when it isn’t), but one man’s demon has always been another man’s angel.
You two choose to run with the property rights topic, which again have little to do with this column and nothing to do with Good Samaritan laws.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
Bron – “the founders decided that property rights are not absolute otherwise they would not have allowed for taking for the public good.”
But they do so with the caveat that government must justly compensate from whom it is taken. To the extent that some takings go to that for which some citizens may “qualify,” but others do not and/or cannot, how are these takings justly compensated.
This is not an anti-tax screed. This goes to the expenditures of that which has been taken. There are no qualifications imposed (for example) by law to benefit by a public road.
I tire of hearing both ends of the spectrum invoking the boogy men, Koch brothers and George Soros. I think Soros should pick a partner and the two sides should have a caged death match.
When I see acts like this I relate it to the animal kingdom. This guy is a vulture in my mind, not a human w/ a conscience, a vulture. Having dealt w/ more than my share of sociopaths it helps me cope.
I think Good Samaritan laws are a much more relevant and productive topic than the same “greed is good” arguments heard over and over.
Just what our anti-immigrant party likes as ammo.
The robber is quick to react (he might likely have been trailing the drunk). Pauses to see if drunk is sufficiently out of it, and flutters into place like the vulture he is.
Either fire the train driver or change his rules.
The first consideration is to save the drunk.
Having looked and seen a foot lying outside the track, he evacuates the train, leaving it still under that time. He could instead have retained the pax, backed the train and applied a tornequet.
We have had computer controlled signaling and train control since 1960′s.
It is high time to install laser-detection systems for large objects entering the track area, which would stop trains from entering that section.
Gene H:
I think you owe a duty to the stranger to save his life if you can do so without risking yours. But risk is a matter for the individual and one man’s idea of risk may be another man’s 24 mile parachute jump.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
So says you. I guess it depends on what one considers foolish. Property rights depend on life and liberty, in fact property rights are dependent on life and the liberty to freely acquire property.
If you consider a belief in property rights foolish, well then . . .
““A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
So says you. I guess it depends on what one considers foolish. [. . .]
If you consider a belief in property rights foolish, well then . . .”
Actually so says Ralph Waldo Emerson. As to property rights and foolishness? An overbalanced focus on their importance is foolish when seeking equitable solutions. Equitable solutions are necessary for a just society. Justice is necessary for a stable, healthy and contiguous society. To unbalance the foundations of society for personal gain is the very essence of foolish.
“Property rights depend on life and liberty, in fact property rights are dependent on life and the liberty to freely acquire property.”
That’s a fine bit of circularity, but it does not change that your property rights – like all of your other rights – end where the rights of others begin.
As to the duty to save another, the reasonable man standard applies. No one expects you to unreasonably risk your life to save another. Good Samaritan laws are not a mandate to be a stunt man or a rescue professional. They call for you to act reasonably when you can and shield you from liability that may be incurred in rescuing another.
Bron – I couldn’t agree more…nor could George Mason, I believe: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” (Article 1., 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights). Jefferson borrowed freely from the 1776 Virginia Declaration for the Declaration of Independence, and the 1776 Virginia Declaration also heavily influenced our Bill of Rights, perhaps the most important Amendment in which is the 9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (please relate this with Article 1., above).
There are a number of comments referring to what should be the nature of the relationship of citizen to government in the united States. Unfortunately for those who hold this view, that relationship is easily discovered in the various texts produced by its Framers.
Perhaps I should have emphasized Mason’s, “[...] they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety“.
Too bad Mason and Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution and are not considered Framers, but Founders.
That’s the problem with most Libertarians and their ilk including their much dumber cousins the tea baggers. You’re a bunch of armchair quarterbacks on Constitutional law. You don’t know what the Constitution says and when you do, you don’t know or understand the jurisprudence around it.
The law is what it is. Your property rights are not absolute. Wishful thinking otherwise notwithstanding. The illusory conflict between property rights and human rights is precisely illusory. It’s brought up by defenders of greed no matter their various motivations, but it’s all sound and fury signifying nothing of Constitutional relevance other than it illustrates the ignorance of that same document by those who promote such an agenda.
There seems to be the sound of one hand clapping in the background…
Said the voice of ignorance.
Bron – A close paraphrase of another comment on this page may help make the matter clearer:
“The [Nuremberg] law[s] …”, are “what [they are". [Jews], [y]our property rights are not”.
idealist707 – I agree that improvements in safety might go far to making such accidents almost impossible, and (price allowing) should be made; but people still have a duty to themselves and others not to make their own contributions to such tragedies. The man who fell onto the tracks was drunk. That was no one’s fault but his own – nor, in that case, was anything else that occurred to him or related others in this case that day that followed from his drunkenness.
Theological query: If the Samaritan was “good,” what is this guy?
Enoch,
“That was no one’s fault but his own – nor, in that case, was anything else that occurred to him or related others in this case that day that followed from his drunkenness.”
If I understand you correctly, you mean that the only motivation here is to clear the track most expeditiosly and restore traffic to its normal function.
If so, they could have accomplished that by continining to run trains until after closeing time and retrievee the corps then. PAX would be given a useful lesson as well by the view of the foot.
With your way, it is only a matter of where you draw the line.
He who fails in any fachion forfeits all, seems to be your motto.
Now how property rights came to be since the CE is beyond my ken (kännedom in swedish).
But let us go back to the bushman and similar “primitive tribes” to consider their situation.
A hunter gatherer existence is dependent on the family unit in a sparsely food-endowed area—jungle or desert.
The tribe is an even stronger unit.
In both cases it is a matter of sharing of the foodstuffs found that day or recent days.
Elaborate rules were followed to assuure equitable sharing according to need and to the deed each had contributed to the collection.
The rule-making progressed to division of search/hunt areas. And it has further progressed through animal keeping, farming, and finally that which we call civilization.
Before farming, the earth was a common resource.
Then the problems began. And civiization has made it worse.
The POINT?
Let’s NOT go back to the h/g existence, but let us recognize that property rights are in fact against nature’s laws. Survival of a rich king at the cost of a thousand starving peasants is not a given by nature—but one taken by force. We must survive as a species, which means naturally concern for each individual.
Has guarding property rights been necessary to “advance” society is still an open question for the well-informed to discuss.
Re safety systems:
I can propose at this instant a system, fully coupled to the train safety stop system, for less than 20,000 dollars a station/stop. Too expensive? Worth it?
enoch:
you know what I dont understand is why people think that only rich, greedy people are concerned with property rights. When the vast majority of Americans own property of some sort. Cars, TVs, condominiums, town houses, maybe some stocks, gold and silver in various forms, animals, etc.
Many people’s only asset is their house or maybe an acre of land given to them by an uncle. The single mother who works 2 jobs to keep her children in food and clothes has a right to her property. Why is she even taxed?
All people think about are the wealthy, they never think about the mother of 2 with a very small stake. Why not try to lighten her tax burden, why not end taxation for people working making under $25,000 per year. Eliminate all taxes on these people so they could actually get ahead.
Bron,
Greed got to this guy….Don’t you have an issue with that….. It’s still the guy on the tracks property…. Dead or alive…… The Koch family has no problem. Taking what’s not theirs too….Don’t you see the similarities….
AY:
I didnt even know the Kochs existed until I learned about them on this blog.
So I dont know who the Kochs have stolen from. But stealing is the taking of something that doesnt belong to you, usually done by force, sometimes by fraud and sometimes by opportunity as this guy did.
If the Kochs have stolen from people that is morally unacceptable, all the more so because of their great fortune.
I would be grateful if you could inform/educate me of the illegal activity of the Kochs. The various court cases and arrests they have gone through because of their illegal dealings.
Bron,
Are you for real…..didnt daddy Koch have an issue with oil transportation with the US….
The federal court is full of shi*. So is the state court. Do you know where you are?
AY:
I dont know and wouldnt understand the legalities behind some sort of esoteric business transaction.
Seriously, I would be grateful if you could explain it to me. I am under the impression you are a lawyer and therefore versed in things that may appear legal but have some sort of duplicity connected.
Bron,
That’s. OK… You wouldn’t understand anyway…..
AY:
so are you not able to list all of the illegal undertakings of the Kochs, the way you were writing I thought there were many cases of illegal activity.
I honestly know very little about the brothers or their company. Other than they are very rich and have hundreds of different businesses and they are privately held and have 100 billion in sales. Apparently their father was a John Birch Society founder. That is the limit of my knowledge.
If they are engaging in criminal acts, I would really like to know.
AY is seeing Koch Brothers in his cereal bowl today.
nick:
I think he doesnt know and just assumes they are criminals because everyone else says they are.
I would like to see a list of the activities they have arrested or served time for or have been fined for. I am sure they have had some regulatory fines, a business that large and diversified has probably broken some regulations. I dont think there would be any doubt of that but was it criminal negligence or just oversight?
AY:
here is a good article by Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Bron,
Here’s somthing to get you started since google doesn’t seem to work for you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html
Regarding “Good Samaritan Laws”, I spent four years in the USCG with SAR being the first and most important mission, so just standing by is simply wrong to me. However: 1) there should be some indemnification; 2) what would you do to enforce it?; and 3) how do you assign it when a crowd fails to act?. There is of course requiring someone to act who self-assesses that they would fail and likely just be one more victim. I was given strategies for making a crowd act, but again that is because I would act and therefore the crowd has acted.
As for notifying authorities, in today’s crowd that cellphone has gone 911 before any other action.
gbk:
thanks for the link, it is the same one I found [see the post above yours] so apparently google does work for me.
I will assume you think the article is a fair assessment of Koch Industries?
I cant say I was surprised though. However you would think Koch would have at least repaired its pipeline.
enochwisner
“A professor of mine once remarked that I have an obsession with consistency. In the case of this blog, I am struck by the inconsistencies involved in pretending anyone in most western cultures/legal systems can be “robbed,” given that there is no so-called private property that a majority can’t take for itself or any other on a whim; and the notion that an individual can be held legally responsible for the life of someone else, but the law cannot hold him culpable for the support and preservation of his own life.
Frankly, I find the contradictions bordering on the insane.”
=================================================
I agree. A drunk man fell onto the train track. Another man robbed him, and left him there.
Promoting a philosophy based on obsessive greed, by manufacturing fallacious, slippery-slope philosophical contradictions for this cruel incident, is beyond bordering on the insane. Frankly.