Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards

Question

Explain the Breach of Duty

Answer 1

- Did D’s conduct fall below that expected of a reasonable person in her position/with a certain skill? ***Adomako ** see footnotes - **Level of Risk** *Kuddus* Reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death - **Risk of Death to who?** Kuddus: "class of people to whom duty was owed" - **Who foresees risk of death?** Objective - NOT the D Reasonable person in D’s position, knowing only those facts available to D. *(Rose [2017])*. Death caused by long condition + evidence competent eye test could have proved this. Initially charged, was this information available at the time of the eye test? ## Footnote Adomako 1.) The more serious the breach of duty the more likely liable 2.) Was there an obvious risk of death (anything less than that does not amount to breach) Kuddus D new owner and chef to a restaurant. V added only prawns and nuts in the allergy section. Passed on to old owner but not onto new owner. V died. D charged with gross negligence manslaughter. Courts said, however, risk of death was not so serious and obvious. Having the wrong system does not foresee death.

Answer 2

🔹 Example 1: “Seriousness of the Breach” – Nurse Olivia Scenario: Nurse Olivia is responsible for checking oxygen levels in patients overnight. She forgets to check one patient's monitor due to being distracted by personal phone calls. The oxygen supply disconnects, and the patient suffers a brain injury. Analysis: Duty of care? Yes – as a nurse. Breach of duty? Yes – she failed to monitor vital signs. Seriousness? Her conduct might be considered very serious because: It was a basic and critical duty. She was distracted by something avoidable (phone use). There was a clear risk of harm or death if oxygen levels dropped. Conclusion: This could amount to gross negligence, especially given the seriousness and the avoidable nature of her breach. 🔹 Example 2: “So Bad It’s Criminal” – Builder Dan Scenario: Dan is a builder constructing scaffolding on a busy street. He uses substandard materials to save money, despite being warned by a supplier they’re unsafe. The scaffolding collapses and kills a passerby. Analysis: Duty of care? Yes – to workers and the public. Breach of duty? Definitely – knowingly using unsafe materials. Risk of death? Very clear – scaffolding collapse can be fatal. “So bad it’s criminal?” The jury could reasonably find this conduct grossly negligent: He had clear warnings. He chose to cut corners to save money. The decision was reckless and showed disregard for life. Conclusion: This is a strong case for gross negligence manslaughter under Adomako.

Answer 3

Standard causation principles D’s breach caused death V would not have died in the same way if she had been treated reasonably For omission liability – what would a reasonable person in D’s position have done? Would that action have prevented V dying in the manner she did?

Answer 4

**Grossly Negligent** 1. Adomako (2009): “the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission.” 2. It asks jury whether D’s behaviour warrants liability for manslaughter 3. No clear criteria, jury are required to look at all surrounding circumstances, including motive, whether D was acting maliciously

Answer 5

Circularity of ‘gross negligence’ Should we be entrusting jurors with making determinations of what is so gross as to be criminal? Should inadvertence be punished? And is the fault element of GNM too broad? “The consequence of harm alone does not compel a criminal conviction, and the unprincipled privileging of harm over culpability has resulted in a poorly defined serious homicide offence which leaves much to the discretion of the jury, is ‘incapable of any objective and fair measurement’8 and needs further judicial or legislative attention.” (Lodge, 2017)

Answer 6

LC 304 Proposes changes to 2. Gross negligence manslaughter. It will be manslaughter if (1) A causes B’s death (2) a risk that his or her conduct will cause death would be obvious to a reasonable person in his or her position (3) he or she is capable of appreciating that risk at the material time, (4) his or her conduct falls far below that can reasonably be expected of him or her in the circumstances.

Answer 7

1.) The defendant’s act or omission caused the death of another person; 2.) The defendant was aware at the time of acting or omitting that a risk of death or serious injury existed; 3.) The relevant risk was taken without adequate justification | RARELY RELY ON IT + DOES IT EXIST ## Footnote Cunningham v G

Answer 8

This is the correct charge where there is evidence that D foresaw death or serious injury resulting from his/her conduct but there is insufficient evidence that D directly intended that consequence or foresaw it as virtually certain. “The word “apparently” is necessary because very few writers think that RM exists uncontroversially in contemporary English law. The more common view is that the existence of a distinct head of involuntary manslaughter called “reckless manslaughter” is controversial… The appellate courts have thus had virtually nothing to say about RM.” (Stark, 2017)