Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the defendant does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH. The lack of intention is what distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from murder. There are two ways of committing involuntary manslaughter. These are unlawful act manslaughter and Gross negligence manslaughter. The maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment, thus giving the judge discretion to impose any sentence, which is suitable for the particular circumstances of the offence. In some cases, the judge may even pass a non-custodial sentence. Unlawful act manslaughter Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as constructive manslaughter because the liability for the death is built up or constructed from the facts that the defendant has done a dangerous unlawful act, which caused the death. This makes the defendant liable, even though he did not realise that death or injury might occur. The actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter are: - The defendant must do an unlawful act - The act must be dangerous on an objective test - The act must cause death - The act was substantial cause of death The death must be caused by an unlawful act, which must be a criminal offence. A civil wrong is not enough, FRANKLIN (1883). There must be an act: an omission cannot not create liability for unlawful act manslaughter,
negligence in tort
LW1008 OBLIGATIONS 1 Negligence in tort has various meanings. It may refer to the tort of negligence or it may refer to careless behaviour. A person who totally disregards the safety of others but does not injure them is not guilty of negligence, although they may be morally reprehensible. On the other hand, the person who tries their best but fall below the standard set by the court and causes any damage will be liable.1 Negligence is judged by an objective standard set, where the court will look at what a 'responsible man or woman' would have done in the defendant's position. An example of this is in the case of Nettleship v Weston (1971)2 , the defendant was a learner driver who was given lessons by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's negligent driving. It was held that all drivers, including learning drivers, would be judged by the standards of the average competent driver. Duty, breach, causation and damage are the elements that together make up any successful negligence claim. If the claimant wants to win in a negligence action, some certain points must be proven such as that the defendant owed them a duty of care; that the defendant was in breach of that duty; and that the claimant suffered damage caused by the breach of duty, which was not too remote. In negligence, it has to be proven by the claimant that there has been some
Criminal Assignment.
Criminal Assignment Dick should be advised that he could be liable for Indecent Assault. Although no force was used against the boy, creating fear is sufficient and the boy may have been frightened of Dick. However, Dick will be strictly liable under the Indecency with Children Act 1960. By s.1 of this statute "any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable". Dick could not argue consent because under this act the boy is too young. Speck (1977) 2 ALL ER 859. There is no requirement that the victim, for example, accepts the accused's invitation to handle his penis. The offence is committed even when the child does nothing. The offence is one of strict liability as to the age of the victim B v DPP (1998) 4 ALL ER 465 (DC). Dick may also be liable under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for Actual Bodily Harm and Battery. Dick has demonstrated an unlawful display of force against Jasmin which caused her to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence (the requirement for actual bodily harm) with the consequence of a broken nose. In Miller (1954) 2 QB 282 it was defined as, any hurt or injury likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (the hurt or injury need not be permanent or serious but must be more than
Cases on provocation
Cases on Provocation R v Pearson [1992] Crim LR 193, CA Two brothers D1 and D2 were jointly charged with the murder of their father, who had seriously ill-treated the younger D2 over a period of eight years while D1 was away from home. Allowing their appeal and substituting a manslaughter verdict, the Court of Appeal said the jury should have been told to consider the father's words and deeds towards D2 when deciding whether or not D1 had been provoked, particularly since D1 had returned home deliberately to protect D2 from his father's violence. Similarly, the courts had tried in earlier cases to lay down exactly what conduct could and what could not amount to provocation, but the Act set these precedents aside. The defendant can claim provocation where the supposedly provocative behaviour is not unlawful or unreasonable, or where he is mistaken (perhaps through voluntary intoxication) as to the meaning of the other person's behaviour, or even where the supposedly provocative behaviour was in fact a response to his own. R v Davies [1975] 1 All ER 890, CA A man D became jealous of his wife W's association with another man S, and threatened to kill him. Over the course of the next six months D broke into W's bedroom with a loaded pistol, set fire to a friend's house, and eventually shot W as she met S outside the library where she worked. D was convicted of murder and
I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to draft a report for the Board of Directors of Everlasting Estates, explaining the company's liability and any defenses which the company may rely on.
Glossary Terms . Tort - A series of duties imposed primarily by the law to regulate human contact. 2. Damages - Monetary compensation. 3. Plaintiff - Person who incites civil proceedings. 4. Defendant - The person who is accused of a crime. 5. Negligence - If a person acts carelessly and as a result of that carelessness, another is injured or suffers loss it may be that, that person is negligent in the law of tort. Not all careless acts will allow the wronged person to sue the wrongdoer for negligence. 6. Common Law - The law made by judges and contains in the decisions of judges. Common Law requires the employer to: * Owe duty of care towards his employees * Provide competent staff * Provide a safe system at work * Provide safe apparatus * Provide safe premises The major statutory duties giving rise to employer's civil liability are: * Construction regulations * Factories Act * Simultaneous criminal offence under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Duty of care - The plaintiff (victim) must show that the defendant (wrongdoer) owes him a duty of care in law. Breach of duty - If established that a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, then the question of fact is whether or not the defendant is in breach of that duty of care. Breach of duty of care will have occurred if the defendant is shown to have acted in an unreasonable manner in the
Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication.
Critically evaluate the principles governing the law on Intoxication Intoxication covers the effects of alcohol, drugs or solvents. It is not actually a defence but it does provide a defence in some circumstances if the defendant does not have the required mens rea of the offence. A drunken man can take actions whilst influenced by drugs or drink that he would not have taken if he had been sober, but he cannot raise the defence of intoxication, if he has the capability of forming the required mens rea of the offence. If the defendant had the intention before becoming drunk he will be charged with the offence he committed whilst being drunk. Intoxication is an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor of an offence. The law recognises that alcohol or drugs may impair a defendant's power of perception, so he cannot foresee or measure the consequences which may arise from his actions which he would be able to foresee if he was sober, therefore he cannot be plead a defence that he did not have the ability to judge between right and wrong or that he did something whilst being drunk which he would not ever do had he been sober. There are two categories of intoxication, the first of which is voluntary intoxication, this is where the defendant chooses or knowingly takes a substance knowing it will cause him to become intoxicated, this depends on what mens rea is required
In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In addition, nature of liability in tort of negligence is analyzed, including occupier liability, strict liability, health and safety issue
Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 3.1. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.1.1. UK legal system 3.1.2. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.2. Nature of liability of negligence 3.2.1. Legal aspects 3.3. Vicarious liability 3.3.1. General vicarious liability 3.3.2. Employer’s liability 3.3.3. Health and safety issues 3.3.4. Scenario analysis 4. Elements of tort of negligence II. CONCLUTION REFERENCES ________________ Memo To: Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan From: Tran Nguyen Thao Suong Regarding: Report on Business Contract Date: 23th December 2012 Dear Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan, I am Tran Nguyen Thao Suong from class SUD11, University of Sunderland. I wrote this memo to you in order to support you approach my work easily. I have spent times for doing this assignment. During the work, I understand some certain aspects of tort. I have also earned lots of essential knowledge and developed skills relating to the practical application of tort and other issues of liability and negligence relating occupier liability and vicarious that I can apply in real life situations. In addition, I discussed with my friends to sort out problems and come up with solutions. This attempt supports me a lot and enhances my teamwork ability.
That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on which the law of tort is based. Critically analyze how to concept of vicarious liability might seem to contradict this principle and explain why.
That wrongdoers should be liable for their own actions is a fundamental principle on which the law of tort is based. Critically analyze how to concept of vicarious liability might seem to contradict this principle and explain why. The law of tort is based on the principle that tortfeasor should be held liable for their own acts that caused harm to another. However, Vicarious Liability contradicts this principle, they hold another person liable for the acts that the tortfeasor has done, even though he may not even know that act has been done. This seems to be very unfair but in reality there are a few reasons why this is necessary. For someone to be vicariously liable for the acts of another there must be a relationship between both parties- this justifies giving the latter responsibility for the acts of the former. In order to decide whether vicarious liability applies in a particular situation, the cout would have to address two questions: was the person who committed the tort an employee of the defendant and was the tort committed in the course of that person’s employment? If this two conditions are satisfied only can another person be held jointly liable for the acts of another. In the case of Ready Mixer Concrete v Minister of Pensions, the claimants were lorry drivers who did work for the defendants manufacturing company. They use lorries which had the company’s
Duty of Care
Duty of care In tort law, a duty of care is legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foresee-ably harm others. The courts had decided that a duty should be owed, E.G road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. The neighbor test has been made to expound such a general test, the neighbor principle means that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbor. With the term 'neighbor' its meant people who are so closely and directly affected by your act, E.g drivers and road users, doctors and patients. The neighbour principle was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, this case was about a snail in the ginger beer bottle, its where two friends went out for a drink, friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered for a drink, as Mrs Donoghue started to drink from the ginger beer bottle a contaminated snail fell out of it, therefore Mrs donoghue suffered several injuries, Mrs Donoghue had no direct or indirect claim against the manufacturer based on contractual obligations because she did not purchase the product but yet she sued the manufacturer. Now the requirements are it that must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist were laid down in Caparo Industries v Dickman. There are three elements, these are; (a)
Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.
A level law homework 2 Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter The offence, which Don has committed, is murder because the initial injuries in which Don caused to Tim are thought to have been the main aspect of why Tim died. The definition of murder is, 'the unlawful killing of a living human being, under the Queens peace with malice aforethought.' The definition of murder is then broken down into two separate parts. The first being the Actus reus of the offence which means the guilty act and the second part is the Mens rea which is the guilty state of mind in which the defendant caused harm to the victim. The actus Reus is therefore, the unlawful killing that in Dons case is murder, of a living human being this is fulfilled because Tim was alive at the time of the accident and under the Queens peace which means that everyone in the country is under the Queens laws so this was fulfilled. The mens rea of the offence is the malice aforethought which means an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). The case supporting this was R v Moloney. When applying the law to the facts, there has to be causation. There are two types of causation, Causation in fact, and causation in law. Causation in fact is proven through using the 'BUT FOR TEST' the authority for causation in fact is R v White. This is where you say but for the defendant's actions would the victim have
