There is definately a moral obligation to save the child. A life far outweighs not getting wet and getting a cold, which you do not get from getting wet anyway. There is no danger for the man, so perhaps there should be a legal obligation, in the knowledge that he wont get hurt.

There is, of course, a moral obligation to help the child. Everyone in society is constantly under the obligation to help anyone in need. However, there are huge problems that arise when speaking of this issue legally. If everyone is required to help, then what is the definition of immediate danger? Should you be legally obligated to help a starving man on the streets? If so, then for how long until you’ve fulfilled your legal duty? It’s societies job to enforce morals and values with regard to helping others, not the lawmakers’.

yes there is a legal obligation to help this boy. Recently a truckie carrying vegetables crashed and was thrown out of his vehicle onto the highway. A Motorists then pulled up alongside got out of his car and walked straight past the truckie who was in a life threatening condition and took some potatoes which fell out of the crashed truck. He spent prison time because he failed to help the truckie