GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER Flashcards
THERE MUST BE A DUTY OF CARE
(Adamako) Neighbour principle from (Donoghue v Stevenson); duty owed to anyone closely or directly affected by acts or omissions
- can be a pre-existing duty
PRE-EXISTING DUTIES
A: pre-existing (Robinson) or obvious duty of care
- driver/ other road users (Nettleship v Weston)
- doctor/ patient (Whitehouse v Jordan)
- sportsman/ sportsman (Condon v Basi)
- employer/ employee (Walker v Northcumberland CC)
- policeman/ public ( Robinson c Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police)
- lawyer/ patient ( Hall v Simons)
- public body/ public (Clunis v Camden and Islington)
- judiciary/ public (Sirros/ Moore)
- fire brigade/ public (Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC)
OMISSION
Parent/ child (R v Gibbons & Proctor)
Voluntarily/ assumed (R v Stone & Dobinson)
Public (R v Dytham)
Contractual (R v Pittwood)
Starting chain of events (R v Miller)
Statutory s170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
ESTABLISH A CARE OF DUTY THROUGH (Caparo v Dickman) ‘NOVEL SITUATION’
A: harm/ damage is reasonably foreseeable (Kent v Griffiths)
B: Proximity - time, space/ relationship (Bourhill v Young)
C: Just, fair & reasonable/ no public policy reasons (Mulcahy v MOD)
BREACH OF DUTY
- Reasonable man test applies: D judged against the standard expected of the reasonable doing the same activity as him
- court considers what D was expected to do and whether they failed to do so/ did this a poor standard:
(Singh) D breached his duty to manage and maintain properties where a faulty gas fire caused deaths
(litchfield) D breached his duty of care to the crew on his ship which exploded due to fuel contamination
(Stone & Dobinson) Failing to care for a relative, having taken responsibility for them
(Wacker) Failing to provide oxygen to illegal immigrants in the back of a lorry
GROSS NEGLIGENCE
‘ so bad in all circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgment to a criminal act or omission’ (Adamako)
(Singh) judge held that the ‘reasonable prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk merely of injury but of serious injury’
(Adamako) an anaesthetist failed to notice an oxygen tube disconnected for 10 mins, failure described as ‘abysmal’
RISK OF DEATH
Clear and obvious risk of death (Misra & Srivastava)
Doctors did not notice clear signs of blood poisoning (M&S)
CAUSATION
(A) Factual: ‘but for’ D’s breach of duty, the V would not have died (R v White)
(B) Legal: D’s breach contributed to the V’s death in a more than minimal way and the operating and substantiating cause of V’s death (R v Smith)
The chain of causation must not be broken by an intervening act (R v Cheshire)
Thin skull rule applies as normal (R v Blaue)
