Liability vs. Responsibility

There was a drowning in our neighborhood recently and one rather disturbing thing happened: nothing. The friends of the victim did not shout or raise any kind of alarm when he failed to reappear after diving into the water. The 20 year old died only 15 ft from shore.

Perhaps even more distubing, however, is the community discussion about the incident that took place last night. It seems that the roving park attendant employed by the Homeowners Association made a statement on tv that he was sorry that he hadn't been there because he could have saved the young man. Neighbors were upset because saving people is not part of his job description and the association might be liable if he acted in a life guard capacity. In fact, having a flotation device at the pier is not an even an option because it would indicate that the homeowners were accepting some responsibility for what happens in the 60 acre lake. "This is not a swimming pool and we don't employ life guards," the Board President said.

Apparently the neighborhood would rather make the evening news as Alameda, CA did when fire and police looked on while Raymond Zack stood for an hour in the freezing water of San Franciso Bay and committed suicide. They weren't properly trained to save him, they told the press.

Doing nothing in the face of an emergency is still enough of a story that it's worthy of note, but apparently it is becoming policy and before long it won't be of much interest. At the same Homeowners meeting, a police officer stated that they cannot get involved in anything other than a felony in progress while on a break. They must call any other type of report in and await the arrival of their colleagues who are on duty. This reminds me of the rescue personnel in a New York bagel shop who stood by while a pregnant woman died. They were on a break, too, and apparently this means that they were no longer covered by the liability insurance policies that protect active duty responders.

The potential for liability is shaping our cultural values. What was once unthinkable is now becoming the law: inaction in the face of danger to another person is to be expected, not condemned. Apparently "Good Samaritans" are still able to come to another's rescue, but the people paid to do so and covered by insurance while they do, are bound by stringent rules that direct their availability and actions. We create this culture of caution by the instructions that we give to those we employ. Are we listening to ourselves???

This is leading nowhere good. If we can no longer depend on each other to watch our backs, we increase the danger to us all. The insurance companies are stipping us of the expectation of safety that is basic to a society. Out of fear of "liability," we are, instead, ensuring that we will live in fear of harm.

God calls us to "love they neighbor as thyself." This is not difficult if we realize that it is only in standing together that any of us can survive for long. It is the lone tree that is destroyed in a hurricane; those in a cluster are protected from the wind. Isolation from responsibility is, ultimately, self defeating.

Fear, mistrust and the economics of the insurance industry's stock on Wall Street are driving this train. A loveless legalism is the next stop. St. John has a better answer: "perfect love casts out fear." (1 John 4:18).