Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
Duty of care
Duty owed to anyone closely or directly affected by acts or omissions. (Adamako) reinstated by (Donoghue v Stevenson)
Can be a pre-existing duty
Ways to establish a duty of care
Pre-existing (Robinson) or an obvious duty
Omission ( gibbons & proctor)
Camaro v Dickman
duty of care established
Closely or directly affected (Broughton)
Pre-existing duty (Robinson)
Duty via omission
Obvious duty (apply closest pre-existing)
Caparo
Caparo v Dickman (Caparo Test)
- The harm or damage caused is reasonably foreseeable (Kent v griffiths)
- There is a close proximity between the parties (Bourhill v Young)
- It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D (Mulcahy v MOD)
ONLY USE WHEN THERE IS NO PRE EXISTING DUTY
Pre-existing Duties
Lawyer/client - (Hall v Simons)
Public body/public - (Clunis v Camden & Islington)
Drivers/other road users - (Nettleship v Weston)
Fire Brigade/public - (Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC)
Doctor/patient - (Whitehouse v Jordan)
Sportsman/sportsman - (Condon v Basi)
Police/public - (Robinson v CC of WYP)
Judiciary/public - (Sirros v Moore)
Employer/employee - (Walker v Northumberland CC)
Breach of duty
- Reasonable man test: judged against the standard of the ordinary man doing the same activity as him.
- Court considers what D was expected to do and whether they failed to do so/did this at a poor standard
- If D is a trainee/learner this is taken into account
(Singh)
Gross Negligence
‘So bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgement to a criminal act or omission’ (R v Adamako)
Risk of death
Clear and obvious risk of death (Misra & Srivastava)
Go ‘beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects (Bateman)
Causation
Factual: ‘but for’ D’s breach of duty, V would not have died (White)
Legal: D’s breach contributed to the V’s death in a more than minimal way/operating and substantial cause of death (Smith)
Intervening acts, TSR
