Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

Good Samaritan
· Some countries have a `Good Samaritan' law i.e. France which
makes a person responsible for helping others in an
emergency situation despite being strangers
· Problems:
· What if someone pretends to need assistance to attack the
stranger later?
· What is an emergency situation?
· Could an untrained intervention cause more harm?
· If more that 2 witnesses, who should go in to help?
· Would-be rescuers are at risk…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

· The normal rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of
an offence. However, there are exceptions to this rule
1. Contractual Duty: i.e. Pittwood 1902
2. Duty arising form specific relationship i.e. Gibbins and Proctor
3. Voluntary assumption of duty i.e. Stone and Dobinson 1977
4. Duty arising form official position i.e. Dytham 1979
5. D's own acts i.e. Miller 1983, Santana Bermudez 2003…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Duty of Doctors
· If a doctor decides to discontinue treatment of a patient for
their best interest, this is not an omission
· Airedale NHS Trust v Bland 1993: Bland suffered a severe
brain damage after being crushed in a crowd panic at a
football stadium. He was in a persistent vegetative state and
fed artificially and unaware of his surroundings. He had been
in this state for 3yrs and doctors which cared for him asked
the court for a ruling that they could stop feeding him. Courts
agreed as it was held to be in his best interests.…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

· Factual Cause- "but for the D's actions, would the consequence
have happened?" If yes, the D will be guilty
· Pagett 1983: D took his pregnant gf from her home by force and
held her hostage. Police called on him to surrender but D came out
holding the girl as a shield and fired bullets. The police returned fire
and the girl was killed by police bullets
· Legal Cause- Where D can be found guilty if his conduct was more
than a minimal cause of the consequence but the conduct need not
be a substantial cause
· Kimsey 1996: D was involved in a high speed car chase with a
friend. She lost control and the other driver was killed in the crash.
The judge directed the jury that D's driving didn't have to be "the
principal or substantial cause of the death, as long as you're sure
that it was a cause and there was something more than a slight or
trifling link"…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

Thin Skull Rule
· D must take V as he finds him
· If the V has something unusual about his physical/mental state
which makes his injury more serious, then the D will be liable
for that injury too i.e. where a blow to the head only causes
bruising on one person but to a person with a thin skull results
in death/serious injury, the D will still be liable
· Blaue 1975…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »