Gross negligence manslaughter

What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter
When a person dies as a result of the negligence of another
1 of 44
What is the leading case on GN Manslaughter
Adomako 1994
2 of 44
What happened in the case of Adomako
D was anaesthetist, during eye op. During op. the tube connecting O to patient = disconnected - Patient died
3 of 44
What are the elements Adomako required to prove Gross Negligence Manslaughter
1) Duty of care exists from defendant to Victim, 2) There was a breach in this duty of care, 3) The gross negligence is such to be considered criminal by jury
4 of 44
How to see if a duty of care was owed
Apply Donoghue test 1932
5 of 44
Donoghue test states...
'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour'
6 of 44
Who is your neighbour?
A neighbour is a person who is closely and directly affected by my actions that I ought to have had them in contemplation when applying my mind to the acts or omissions in question'
7 of 44
What are the situations where you owe a duty of care?
1) Contractual, 2) Public duty, 3) Loco Parentis, 4) Vouluntary Assumption of a relationship, 5) Creation of a dangerous situation, 6) Professional duty to a client
8 of 44
1) Contractual
Pitwood (1902) - Rail crossing keeper omitted to lower gates
9 of 44
2) Public duty
Dytham (1979) - Police officer saw bouncer beat up man
10 of 44
3) Loco Parentis
Gibbons & Proctor (1918) - Didn't feed child starved to death
11 of 44
4) Vouluntary Assumption of a relationship
Stone v Dobinson - Failed to take care of ill, elderly relative
12 of 44
5) Creation of a dangerous situation
Miller (1983) - set fire to matress
13 of 44
6) Professional duty to a client
Doctors, Dentist, Builder, Gas fitter - ETC
14 of 44
Caparo Test states:
1) was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable? 2) Is there a sufficient proximate relationship between victim and defendant, 3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty
15 of 44
Key issue with Duty of care...
Imported for negligence laws = does this mean other tort concepts are to be imported too
16 of 44
Law of negligence suty of care defences...
Volenti nonfit injuria, Contributory negligence, Exturpi Causa
17 of 44
Volenti nonfit injuria
Defence if D is sued if D can show that the victim voluntairly took on a known risk of loss or injury
18 of 44
Contributory negligence
Damages can be reduced to reflect the claiments negligence in contributing to their loses
19 of 44
Exturpi Causa
Damages excluded if the claiment is involved jointly with another in a criminal activity which causes his loss
20 of 44
Is Exturpi Causa imported into manslaughter?
If 2 people are involved in criminal offence and one dies does this mean no manslaughter or murder action is taken??
21 of 44
No - A murder or manslaughter action may still result.
22 of 44
Cases to be used alongside this...
Willoughby (2003) and Wacker (2004)
23 of 44
Willoughby (2003) ...
D cant use Exturpi Causa to prevent manslaughter actions. (Burned down pub - insurance scam, caused explosion = killed V)
24 of 44
Wacker (2004)
No defence of Exturpi Causa ( Lorry driver, illegal immigrant, air vent closed, immigrants died)
25 of 44
Breach of duty
The victims conduct must have breached their duty of care to the victim.
26 of 44
Breach of duty key case
Blyth and Birmingham Waterworks
27 of 44
'Doing something a reasonable man wouldn't do or failing to do something a reasonable man would do'
28 of 44
Gross negligent breach =
Their breach must be gross - Satisfy the Bateman (1925) test
29 of 44
Bateman states =
Did the act show - 'Such a disregard for the life and saftey of others as to amount to a crime'
30 of 44
What is the question for the jury on whether or not the D breached their duty of care...
'Whether or not the D negligence was gross and whether additionally it was a crime, but whether his behaviour was grossly negligent and consequently criminal. This is not a question of law but one of fact'.
31 of 44
What case was this statement in ??
Misra and Srivastava (2004)
32 of 44
What else must the jury take into consideration?
Whether the breach of duty was serious enough as to amount to gross negligence
33 of 44
Case of Finlay (2001)
Scout party, Snowdon = one boy fell to his death - no proper saftey procautions were in place
34 of 44
Case of Edwards (2001)
Daughter and friend played on rail bridge. Parents meant to warn child if train was coming = they didnt and child died
35 of 44
'Risk of death'
The risk of death must have be obvious to a reasonable person.
36 of 44
Risk stated in Adomako and confirmed in Misra
'disregard for the life and saftey of others - Bateman
37 of 44
Objective test is finally considered
'Would a reasonable person in the defendants position have been able to foresee a serious risk of death'?
38 of 44
Other cases for GN mans`
39 of 44
Holloway (1994)
Electrician failed to wire sink up properly = electric shock
40 of 44
Watts (1998)
Opeation child had O tube in throat, mum went took case to car when returned tube out and child dead
41 of 44
Bateman (1925)
Removed someones uterus - didn't take lady to hospital = dead
42 of 44
Andrews V DPP (1937)
Broke speed limit - overtook car and killed pedestrain
43 of 44
Misra V Srivastava (2004)
Didn't provide patient with treatment and medication = dead
44 of 44

Other cards in this set

Card 2


What is the leading case on GN Manslaughter


Adomako 1994

Card 3


What happened in the case of Adomako


Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


What are the elements Adomako required to prove Gross Negligence Manslaughter


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


How to see if a duty of care was owed


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »