Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
Which of the following is NOT a required element for gross negligence manslaughter?
A. A criminal act
B. A breach of duty
C. A duty of care
D. An obvious and serious risk of death
A. A criminal act
Explanation: Gross negligence manslaughter does not require a criminal act. The basis of liability is a breach of duty, not criminal conduct. This distinguishes it from unlawful act manslaughter.
In gross negligence manslaughter, who decides whether the negligence is ‘gross’?
A. The trial judge
B. The prosecution
C. The Coroner
D. The jury
D. The jury
Explanation: It is the role of the jury to determine whether the defendant’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a crime, according to Adomako.
Which case confirmed that the standard of care includes any special skill held by the defendant?
A. R v Singh
B. R v Ruffell
C. R v Adomako
D. R v Miller
C. R v Adomako
Explanation: In Adomako, the defendant was held to the standard of a reasonably competent anaesthetist because of his professional role
What level of risk must be present in gross negligence manslaughter?
A. Any foreseeable injury
B. Risk of minor injury
C. Obvious and serious risk of death
D. Substantial risk of property damage
C. Obvious and serious risk of death
Explanation: The courts in Singh and Misra clarified that gross negligence manslaughter requires an obvious and serious risk of death, not merely injury.
A landlord ignores repeated tenant complaints about gas leaks. One tenant dies of carbon monoxide poisoning. What element is most clearly satisfied?
A. The act was criminal
B. The death was not foreseeable
C. There was a duty of care
D. The conduct was not gross
C. There was a duty of care
Explanation: In R v Singh, the court held that landlords owe tenants a duty of care concerning dangerous conditions in the property.
A boat captain uses contaminated fuel, knowing it might damage the engine. He sails anyway and loses power near rocks. The crew drowns. What is most likely to be found?
A. Unlawful act manslaughter
B. No liability due to lack of intent
C. Assault causing death
D. Gross negligence manslaughter
D. Gross negligence manslaughter
Explanation: Based on R v Litchfield, the captain’s knowledge of the risk and his decision to proceed demonstrated gross negligence leading to death.
A junior doctor is asked to perform a procedure with limited supervision. Due to lack of training and poor advice, she gives the wrong injection. The patient dies. What’s the most likely outcome?
A. Gross negligence manslaughter
B. Not guilty – the mistake was partly caused by others
C. Unlawful act manslaughter
D. Criminal damage
B. Not guilty – the mistake was partly caused by others
Explanation: In Prentice & Sullman, the doctors were not grossly negligent because the situation was made worse by poor guidance and unsafe systems.
A person finds a stranger overdosing outside their house. They do not call for help. The person dies. Which is most likely?
A. Unlawful act manslaughter
B. Gross negligence manslaughter
C. No liability
D. Murder
C. No liability
Explanation: Without a duty of care (such as a relationship or assumption of care), there is no liability. No omission-based duty existed here
A pharmacist fails to check for a drug interaction despite warning signs. The patient dies. It is later shown that any reasonable pharmacist would have caught it. What is the best classification?
A. Civil negligence
B. Gross negligence manslaughter
C. Medical misadventure
D. No liability
B. Gross negligence manslaughter
Explanation: If a professional falls far below the expected standard and causes death, they may be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, as in Adomako.
An optometrist skips a routine test that would have shown a child was at risk of a life-threatening condition. The child dies, but the risk was not obvious at the time. Outcome?
A. No gross negligence – risk not obvious (R v Rose)
B. Conviction for manslaughter
C. Attempted manslaughter
D. Guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
A. No gross negligence – risk not obvious (R v Rose)
Explanation: In Rose, the Court of Appeal held that the risk of death must be obvious at the time of the breach, not something that would have emerged upon further investigation.
A person intentionally blocks a fire escape in a nightclub, thinking it is funny. A fire breaks out and people die. He had no idea it would cause death. What is most likely?
A. Gross negligence manslaughter
B. Not guilty – no mens rea for death
C. Lawful act manslaughter
D. Breach of statutory duty only
A. Gross negligence manslaughter
Explanation: Even if there is no intent, if the act involves a serious disregard for safety and leads to death, it may amount to gross negligence.
A nurse administers the wrong dosage due to poor labelling and poor instructions from doctors. The patient dies. The jury finds the nurse followed the instructions exactly. Likely outcome?
A. Not guilty – not grossly negligent
B. Guilty – she administered the drug
C. Guilty of attempted manslaughter
D. Convicted of unlawful act manslaughter
A. Not guilty – not grossly negligent
Explanation: Following Prentice & Sullman, where others’ failings contribute and the nurse acted reasonably, a conviction is unlikely.
