「经济学人」好人难当？好心没好报？ | 外刊阅读

2024-12-22 03:22#1 标记1

本文选自《经济学人》圣诞专刊，文章较长，讲述了美国最典型的好心助人却被告上法庭的案件。看完你会想起国内哪个类似案件？
How good are good Samaritans?
"好心人"到底有多好？
When doing the right thing goes wrong

How a car crash in Los Angeles rewrote the law on helping strangers
一场洛杉矶车祸重写了助人为善的法律

A moment may come, for every one of us, that tests our willingness to help. Walking by the sea, you hear a cry of distress from the surf. At a party, someone starts choking. On the road, a car up ahead crashes: your friend is in the passenger seat; she is trying to get out; the door is jammed; you see smoke. That was Lisa Torti’s moment and it came on October 31st 2003.
对每个人来说，都可能遇到考验我们是否愿意伸出援手的时刻。在海边散步时，你听到浪涛中传来求救声；在派对上，有人突然窒息；在路上，前方一辆车发生碰撞：你的朋友在副驾驶座上，她试图逃出车外，但车门卡住了，你看到了烟雾。这就是 Lisa Torti 在2003年10月31日遇到的时刻。
The short version of America’s most pivotal case on Good Samaritans goes like this. “They were young people not doing anything terribly wrong, out to have a good time, and then, tragedy happens.” Bob Hutchinson may tell it simply. But winning this case in California’s supreme court was a defining moment in his legal career. His triumph was widely, if unfairly, seen as America’s failure. Two decades on, that night’s disaster remains a test of what it means to do good.
美国最具里程碑意义的好心施救案件，其简短版本是这样的："他们都是年轻人，没有做什么特别错误的事，只是想出去玩得开心，然后悲剧发生了。" Bob Hutchinson 的叙述也许很简单。但在加州最高法院赢得这个案件是他法律生涯的转折点。他的胜诉被广泛认为是美国的失败，尽管这种看法并不公平。二十年后，那个夜晚的灾难仍然考验着何为善举的真谛。
Heroism is both ordinary and extraordinary. A hero usually has no particular duty or special ability to help the person in peril. Both are going about their lives, and then their fates collide. Some hesitate. The hero proves her mettle.
英雄既平凡又非凡。英雄通常对遇险者既无特殊责任，也无特殊能力相助。双方原本各自生活，命运却在某一刻交织。有人犹豫不决，而英雄则以行动证明自己的勇气。
Not so fast, say America’s courts. Under an old principle of common law inherited from Britain, Americans in most states have no obligation to come to one another’s aid, or even to call for help. It does not matter if your failure to assist is morally outrageous: if you walk away, you will face no legal consequences.
但美国法院的观点并非如此。根据从英国继承的普通法旧有原则，在大多数州，美国人既无义务相互援助，甚至无需呼叫救援。即使你的见死不救在道德上令人发指，只要你选择离开，也不会面临任何法律后果。
There are exceptions. A parent must always rescue their child, a teacher his students and a captain her crew. Others who try to help, however, can be sued if their intervention fails. “Good Samaritan laws”, state to state, offer them some protection. Generous ones shield do-gooders as long as they act with reasonable care. But lots do not protect rescuers without professional training. This makes America an outlier among Western democracies. Most European countries require their citizens to help one another.
也有例外情况。父母必须救助自己的孩子，教师必须救助学生，船长必须救助船员。然而，其他试图施救的人如果失败，则可能遭到起诉。各州的"好心施救法"为他们提供一定保护。宽松的法律会在施救者采取合理谨慎措施的情况下予以保护。但很多法律并不保护没有专业训练的施救者。这使美国在西方国家中成为异类。大多数欧洲国家都要求公民互帮互助。
Americans, by contrast, must make snap choices, with consequences that may reverberate for years. In Lisa’s case, they rippled through California’s courtrooms, then its state capitol, until finally they rewrote America’s oldest law on Good Samaritanism.
相比之下，美国人必须当机立断，而其后果可能会持续多年。在 Lisa 的案例中，这些影响波及加州的法庭，然后是州议会，最终重写了美国最古老的《好撒玛利亚人法》（“好人法”）。
Genesis
事情的起因
On Halloween eve, three friends had finished a late shift at a mall in the foothills of north-west Los Angeles, and were getting ready to go out. Alexandra Van Horn and Jonelle Freed swung by Lisa’s house to put on some make-up and pick out something to wear.
在万圣节前夕，三个朋友在洛杉矶西北部山麓的一家商场结束晚班后准备外出。Alexandra Van Horn 和 Jonelle Freed 顺路去 Lisa 家化妆并挑选衣服。
Lisa’s boyfriend, Dion Ofoegbu, and Anthony Watson, another friend, drove them to a dive bar. Tucked into the corner of a nearby strip mall, it was known for stiff drinks and terrific music. The women danced and had several rounds; the men drank little. They all called it a night around 1.30am. Lisa got into Dion’s car. Alexandra and Jonelle went to Anthony’s.
Lisa 的男友 Dion Ofoegbu 和另一位朋友 Anthony Watson 开车载她们去了一家酒吧。这家酒吧位于附近购物中心的一角，以烈酒和绝妙的音乐闻名。女士们跳舞并喝了几轮酒；男士们则喝得很少。凌晨1:30左右，他们决定收场。Lisa 上了 Dion 的车，Alexandra 和 Jonelle 则上了 Anthony 的车。
In the car park, Alexandra glanced at Anthony. It was a moonless night, but he seemed sober enough. She buckled herself into the passenger seat and Jonelle hopped in the back. The two cars turned onto Topanga Canyon Boulevard and idled at a red light.
在停车场里，Alexandra 看了看 Anthony。虽然是个无月之夜，但他看起来清醒得很。她系好副驾驶座的安全带，Jonelle 则跳上后座。两辆车驶上 Topanga Canyon Boulevard，在红灯前停下等待。
The highway runs for 20 miles from the edge of the Pacific Ocean, winding through the canyon among sagebrush and walnut shrubs. In the stretch near the bar, strait-jacketed by a suburban grid, it becomes a smooth seven-mile shot—perfect for drag racing.
这条公路从太平洋边缘延伸20英里，在峡谷中蜿蜒穿过鼠尾草和胡桃灌木丛。在靠近被城市街区所束缚的酒吧的路段，公路变成了一段七英里的平直道路——堪称飙车的完美路段。
She was terrified the car would blow up. She had seconds to decide what to do
她害怕汽车会爆炸。她只有几秒钟的时间来决定该怎么做
When the light turned green, Anthony and Dion floored it. Soon Dion fell back, but Anthony kept going. He crested a hill and suddenly the highway, as if forgetting itself, made a bend. Anthony lost control of the car and rammed it into a lamp post.
当绿灯亮起时，Anthony 和 Dion 都猛踩油门。很快 Dion 就落在后面，但 Anthony 继续加速。他刚爬上一个坡顶，公路突然转弯，仿佛忘记了自己的走向。Anthony 失去了对车辆的控制，撞上了一根路灯杆。
An airbag punched Alexandra in the face. Jonelle was crawling out of the back, and Anthony got out. Alexandra tried to open the passenger door, but something was wrong with it. And maybe something was wrong with her, too, because she realised she couldn’t reach the handle. “I can’t get out,” she said. Her body felt like it had been ripped apart.
安全气囊击中了 Alexandra 的脸部。Jonelle 正从后座爬出来，Anthony 也下了车。Alexandra 试图打开副驾驶门，但门出了问题。而且她可能自己也出了问题，因为她意识到自己够不到车门把手。"我出不去了，"她说。她感觉身体像是被撕裂了一样。
“Alexandra, we’ve got to get you out of the car,” she heard Lisa yell through the window. Lisa had jumped out of her own car and rushed to the crash. She saw smoke, and liquid pooling. She was terrified the car was about to blow up. She had seconds to decide.
"Alexandra，我们必须把你弄出车外，"她听到 Lisa 透过车窗喊道。Lisa 从自己的车里跳出来，冲向事故现场。她看到了烟雾和积聚的液体。她害怕汽车随时会爆炸。她只有几秒钟的时间来做决定。
Lisa yanked open the door and scooped Alexandra up, one arm under her legs and the other behind her back, she recalled in her deposition. She set her down five to ten feet away, she said, supporting her neck with a jacket. Police and paramedics arrived. Anthony’s breathalyser test came back negative. Still, for the police it was clear: Anthony was at fault for speeding. They would write that down and wrap up their report.
据 Lisa 在证词中回忆，她拉开车门，将 Alexandra 抱了出来，一只手臂托着她的腿，另一只手托着她的背。她说，她把 Alexandra 放在离车五到十英尺远的地方，用夹克支撑着她的脖子。警察和救护人员到达现场。Anthony 的酒精测试结果呈阴性。对警察来说很明显：Anthony 超速行驶是事故的肇因。他们会把这些写进报告，然后结案。
The paramedics’ investigation was just beginning. “Does this hurt?” they asked Alexandra in the ambulance, as they touched her. I don’t feel that, she said. She could not move below the waist. She had three rounds of emergency surgery and never walked again.
但救护人员的调查才刚刚开始。"这里疼吗？"他们在救护车里触摸着 Alexandra 问道。我感觉不到，她说。她腰部以下无法移动。她经历了三轮紧急手术，此后再也无法行走。
But Lisa had the story wrong, Alexandra said. Lisa had grabbed her arm and “jerked” her out of the car “like a rag doll”, she said in her legal claim. The pain got a hundred times worse. She said Lisa had actually put her down close to the car. That didn’t seem like the action of someone worried it would explode. (Lisa contested this version of events in her deposition. She said Alexandra never told her not to touch or move her. Both women declined to speak to The Economist. The account above is drawn primarily from court records.)
但 Alexandra 说 Lisa 的描述有误。在她的法律诉状中，她说 Lisa 抓住她的手臂，"像拽布娃娃一样"把她拉出车外。疼痛加剧了一百倍。她说 Lisa 实际上把她放在离车很近的地方。这似乎不像是担心车会爆炸的人会做的事。（Lisa 在证词中对这个说法提出异议。她说 Alexandra 从未告诉她不要触碰或移动她。两位女士都拒绝接受《经济学人》的采访。上述叙述主要来自法庭记录。）
Lisa visited Alexandra in hospital several times. According to Lisa’s lawyer, she felt terrible about how things had turned out. She had wanted to help. Then she heard from Mr Hutchinson’s office. “I told Jonelle that Alex was suing me and she said, ‘That’s absurd’,” Lisa recalled. Alexandra was asked during her deposition if she thought Lisa had been trying to hurt her. “I hope not. I don’t think so,” she said. Would she consider Lisa a friend before the accident? Yes, she would.
Lisa 多次去医院探望 Alexandra。据 Lisa 的律师说，她对事情的结果感到非常糟糕。她本想施以援手。然后她收到了来自 Hutchinson 律师事务所的消息。Lisa 回忆说："我告诉 Jonelle 说 Alex 在起诉我，她说'这太荒谬了'"。在取证时，有人问 Alexandra 是否认为 Lisa 是想伤害她。"我希望不是。我不这么认为，"她说。事故发生前她是否认为 Lisa 是朋友？是的，她会这么认为。
The first court to hear Van Horn v Watson ruled quickly for Lisa, on the basis that she was protected under California’s Good Samaritan law. (Anthony appears on the case name because he is the first defendant listed.) That judgment was reversed on appeal. In 2008 the state supreme court ruled in Alexandra’s favour. The case never went to trial. She won a $4m settlement out of court, with the bill going to insurers.
首次审理 Van Horn v Watson 案的法院基于 Lisa 受加州《好撒玛利亚人法》保护的理由，迅速做出了有利于她的判决。（Anthony 出现在案件名称中是因为他是第一被告。）这一判决在上诉时被推翻。2008年，州最高法院做出了有利于 Alexandra 的判决。该案从未进入审判阶段。她在庭外赢得了400万美元的和解金，由保险公司支付。
American law seems at odds with Americans’ moral instincts
美国法律似乎与美国人的道德本能相悖
The justices were not weighing the morals of the case. They needed only to interpret the Good Samaritan law and so establish whether or not Lisa was immune. California’s law was drafted in the 1950s to protect doctors from being sued if they rendered aid off duty. Later tweaks hoped to encourage citizens with first-aid training to perform CPR.
法官们并非在权衡案件的道德层面。他们只需解释“好人法”，从而确定 Lisa 是否享有豁免权。加州的这项法律起草于20世纪50年代，旨在保护非值班医生施救时免受起诉。后来的修订希望鼓励接受过急救培训的公民实施心肺复苏。
Van Horn turned on whether the law shielded only qualified rescuers, or all citizens. Mr Hutchinson argued Lisa had no protection. Lawmakers had never intended “to invite any wannabe hero wearing a cape to rush in and make a situation worse”. Moreover, he argued, she had not provided medical care in merely pulling Alexandra out of the car, whether or not she had believed it was about to go up in flames.
Van Horn 案的主题是法律是仅保护合格的施救者，还是所有公民。Hutchinson 认为 Lisa 不受保护。他辩称，立法者从未打算"邀请任何穿着斗篷的想当英雄的人冲进来把情况弄得更糟"。此外，他认为，无论 Lisa 是否相信汽车即将爆炸，仅仅把 Alexandra 拉出车外并不构成提供医疗救助。
Lamentations
哀歌/叹
Lisa’s lawyer, Jody Steinberg, argued that such a narrow interpretation of the law would chill do-gooding. The Boy Scouts of America lent its support to Lisa in court, alarmed that a ruling against her could expose its 3m Scouts—who pledge to “help other people at all times”—to lawsuits. It noted a twisted incentive: a rescuer would do better to wait for a victim to suffer burns before saving them from a fire, so that the law deems their care medical and protects them.
Lisa 的律师 Jody Steinberg 认为，对法律如此狭隘的解释会打击助人为善的行为。美国童子军（BSA，美国最大的青少年组织）在法庭上支持 Lisa，他们担心对她不利的判决可能会使其300万名童子军——他们宣誓"时刻帮助他人"——面临诉讼风险。该组织指出了一个扭曲的激励：施救者最好等到受害者被火烧伤后再施救，这样法律才会将其援助视为医疗行为并给予保护。
Courts enforce many of our widely shared moral values. Without prohibitions against murder, rape and theft, strangers would find it hard to co-exist. But should the law also dictate when and how we help one another? This question is at the heart of the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man is robbed and left for dead. A priest and a Levite see him but walk by on the other side of the road. A Samaritan—an enemy of the Jews, in Jesus’s time—stops to help. Rabbinic law instructed holy men not to touch a corpse. The parable implies that the two pious Israelites used this as an excuse to ignore the stricken man. Jesus’s message was that the moral duty to help strangers in need should trump the letter of the law.
法院执行着我们许多共同的道德价值观。没有对谋杀、强/奸和盗窃的禁止，陌生人将难以共处。但法律是否也应该规定我们何时以及如何互帮互助？这个问题正是《圣经》中好撒玛利亚人寓言的核心。在从耶路撒冷到杰里科（耶利哥）的路上，一个人被抢劫后奄奄一息。一位祭司和一位利未人看见他，却从路的另一边走过。一位撒玛利亚人——在耶稣时代是犹太人的敌人——停下来帮助他。犹太教律法指示圣职人员不得触碰尸体。这则寓言暗示两位虔诚的以色列人用这个借口忽视了受难者。耶稣所传达的信息是：帮助有需要的陌生人的道德责任应该胜过法律条文。
After Van Horn, newspapers ran lines such as “No good deed goes unpunished”. Many were shocked that attempted heroics had been condemned. American law seems at odds with Americans’ moral instincts. Only four states punish Bad Samaritans for failing to help a fellow citizen, on the European model: Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Van Horn 案后，报纸刊登了诸如"好心没好报"之类的标题。许多人对英雄救人的尝试反被谴责感到震惊。美国法律似乎与美国人的道德本能相悖。只有明尼苏达、罗德岛、佛蒙特和威斯康星四个州仿效欧洲模式，对见死不救者进行惩罚。
To their critics, who include many American legal scholars and philosophers, “Bad Samaritan laws” violate the freedom to choose whether to do a good deed. Yet examples of forced civic duty abound: the obligation to pay taxes and serve on a jury, for instance.
对批评者而言，包括许多美国法学学者和哲学家，《坏撒玛利亚人法》侵犯了选择是否行善的自由。然而，强制性公民义务的例子比比皆是：比如纳税和担任陪审团成员的义务。
Some foresee more bungled rescues. A weak swimmer should not be expected to save a drowning man. They picture a legal logjam if everyone at the scene of an emergency could be prosecuted. Such laws would embolden daredevils, they argue, imposing an unfair burden on the prudent. Others consider the effects on morality. Forcing us to help one another would make true and coerced altruism indistinguishable. Spontaneous kind acts would lose their cachet—a perverse consequence for a law that champions virtue.
一些人预见到更多救援失误的可能。不应期望一个游泳技术差的人去救溺水者。他们设想如果紧急情况现场的每个人都可能被起诉，将会造成法律僵局。他们认为，这些法律会助长冒险者的气焰，对谨慎者造成不公平的负担。还有人考虑对道德的影响。强迫我们互帮互助会使真诚和被迫的利他行为难以区分。自发的善举将失去其特殊意义——这对于一部倡导美德的法律来说是一个反常的后果。
Yet a study by Harry Kaufmann of Hunter College found that even a minimal legal duty to rescue can help reset people’s moral compasses in a positive way. Such laws also allow us to come to one another’s aid without fear of reprisal. Plenty of countries have had them for decades, without dire repercussions. This may reveal the best argument against them: they don’t do much at all. America’s four states threaten Bad Samaritans with a $500 fine, community service or a brief stint in jail. Only a single American case, 30 years ago, ended in a conviction.
然而，亨特学院的 Harry Kaufmann 的研究发现，即使最低限度的法定救助义务也能以积极的方式重置人们的道德指南针。这些法律也让我们能够在不担心遭到报复的情况下互帮互助。许多国家实施这些法律已有几十年，并未造成严重后果。这可能揭示了反对这些法律的最佳论据：它们根本没有太大作用。美国的四个州以500美元罚款、社区服务或短期监禁来威慑见死不救者。30年来只有一个美国案例最终导致定罪。
Theoretically, lots of non-rescues could be going unnoticed. David Hyman of Georgetown University doubts it: in fact, many are sensationalised. Mr Hyman tried to quantify how often Americans help or fail to help one another. He found that rescues exceeded non-rescues by 800 to one in 1994-2004; and that 100 Americans lost their lives every year trying to rescue someone. Sixty times as many rescuers died as did victims who had been ignored. Americans were not failing to intervene—they were far too willing to do so. Whether a state had Good or Bad Samaritan laws made no difference. Perhaps this is unsurprising. Most people are not legal experts and, when the crucial moment arrives, there is no time to consult a textbook.
理论上，很多见死不救的案例可能未被发现。乔治城大学的 David Hyman 对此表示怀疑：事实上，许多案例都被媒体炒作。Hyman 试图量化美国人互帮互助或见死不救的频率。他发现在1994-2004年期间，救助与不救助的比例为800：1；每年有100名美国人在试图救人时丧生。施救者的死亡人数是被忽视的受害者的60倍。美国人并非不愿意施救——他们太过愿意这样做了。无论一个州是否有《好撒玛利亚人法》或《坏撒玛利亚人法》都没有影响。这也许不足为奇。大多数人都不是法律专家，而且当关键时刻到来时，没有时间查阅教科书。
Revelation
启示
Four days after the final ruling in Van Horn, California’s state assembly introduced a bill to protect everyday rescuers like Lisa. It remains the law of the state.
Van Horn 案最终裁决四天后，加州议会提出了一项法案，保护像 Lisa 这样的普通施救者。这至今仍是该州的法律。
Under it, Alexandra might have received a smaller payout—possibly one far from commensurate with her life-altering injuries. Would it have mattered to a jury that the smoke that scared Lisa came from the airbags, a result of the chemical reaction that makes them deploy quickly? Or that a paramedic said in his deposition that he found Alexandra lying at an awkward angle, perhaps a clue that the rescue had injured her? Or maybe this detail would have stuck: in that split second, Dion too had rushed to the mangled car and grasped Jonelle to help her out.
根据这项法律，Alexandra 可能会获得较少的赔偿——可能远不足以弥补她改变人生的伤害。对陪审团来说，那些吓到 Lisa 的烟雾来自安全气囊（因其快速展开时的化学反应所致）是否重要？或者一位救护人员在证词中说他发现 Alexandra 躺在一个尴尬的角度，这也许暗示施救造成了伤害？又或者这个细节会让人记住：在那分秒之间，Dion 也冲向那辆损毁的汽车，抓住 Jonelle 想帮她出来。
Perhaps there lies in all of us an irrepressible urge to help. As the jurors deliberated, they may have asked a question of themselves: if it had been me, what could I have lived with?
也许我们每个人内心都有一种无法抑制的助人冲动。当陪审员们仔细考虑时，他们可能会问自己一个问题：如果是我，我能接受什么样的结果？