There is no legally enforceable duty in the United States to act when others are in peril, save for in certain circumstances and relationships like parent-to-child, driver-to-passenger, employer-to-employee, teacher-to-student, doctor-to-patient, homeowner-to-houseguest, etc.
Only when one party has created the peril that another encounters is there a clear duty to act in attempted rescue; otherwise, the omission to act is generally not criminal outside of an interesting legal caveat.
An example of that legal caveat is that one party may be held liable if they attempt to rescue another who is drowning and fails to complete the rescue. Thus, if a party initiates a rescue but ends up inadvertently leaving the other in a worse situation, they may be liable, meaning that acting to rescue another when there is no legal expectation can place the rescuing party at greater risk of litigation, even in states that employ Good Samaritan Laws providing liability protection against “ordinary negligence.”
Long story short, one may have more to lose by prioritizing being a good person over being a cautious citizen. Reputational harm can happen anytime there is even a question of one’s character, and few circumstances trigger the questioning of one’s character as much as involvement with the legal system. Often, one can be found innocent in court, while the stain of guilt is forever worn in the court of public opinion.
The gym has recently become a hotspot for cancel culture, with many phones set up to feign filming fitness progress to capture wandering eyes, intentional or unintentional, to humiliate them on social media for character assassination. Putting ourselves in danger of being canceled through reputational harm can be reason enough not to intervene when someone is in danger of hurting themselves.
It may also be time to decline requests to spot others when asked, citing the potential for reputational harm as the reason for not being helpful.
Though the squat exercise comes close, with the proper spot requiring the spotter to position themselves directly behind the lifter, with their hands wrapped around, hovering over their chest, it’s the bench press exercise that is most egregious when it comes to the optics of inappropriateness resulting in greater potential for reputational harm.
A proper spot on the bench press requires the spotter to position themselves with their crotch area a few inches from the lifter’s forehead. A failure to lift triggering spotter intervention can sometimes result in the spotter’s crotch grazing the lifter’s forehead. It doesn’t take much to connect the dots on how this social media content without context can result in targeted negativity toward the spotter.
A good spotter, much like a Good Samaritan, holds the lifter’s safety in their hands. A cost-benefit analysis of the best-case scenario, safely helping someone lift weights, and the worst-case scenario, being a victim of character assassination, shows that the logical option may be not to spot someone and not to step in when someone is in danger.
Outside of the gym, it’s not uncommon to witness harassment. Though much less common, we may also witness acts of assault, verbal or physical. Our natural inclination may be to intervene as Good Samaritans whenever we witness harassment or assault, but it may be time to apply the same cost-benefit analysis as we would inside the gym. Does the best-case scenario exceed the worst-case scenario? Does potentially rescuing someone from peril exceed potentially facing litigation for failing to complete the rescue?
The next time someone needs help, we may need to ask ourselves if the worst-case scenario of our intervention exceeds the best-case scenario of our intervention. If someone falls, does the best-case scenario of them being grateful for our help getting up exceed the worst-case scenario of them contacting the authorities and claiming they did not consent to our help getting up?
In a society that favors victimhood over victory, many seek new and innovative ways to play victim. Though faith in humanity remains in the present day, it may not be long before being a good person over being a cautious citizen is exhausted from our social norms. It may not be long before society navigates through life with cost-benefit analysis goggles on at all times, weighing the negative potential of intervention against the positive potential of intervention, opting not to risk being found guilty in the court of public opinion, even if innocent in the court of law.
