R v Pittwood (1902)
Pittwood was a railway crossing keeper and omitted to shut the gates. Having opened the gates to allow a cart to pass over the line he forgot to close it before going off to lunch. A few minutes later a passing train killed the driver of a hay cart as it was crossing the line. He was convicted of manslaughter as it was his job to keep the line safe.
A more modern example would be if a lifeguard left his post unattended to. His failure to leaving the post unattended could make him guilty of an offence if a swimmer had been injured or had drowned.
A duty because of a relationship –
This is usually a parent – child relationship and can also apply to an elder child who is looking after their elderly parent.
In Gibbins v Proctor the father of a 7 year old child and his partner starved the young girl and kept her separate from the rest of his kids, the child died as a result of their failure to feed her. Although the child was not the woman’s she had assumed responsibility for the girl as she was living with the man and eating food provided by him.
A duty voluntarily undertaken –
In Gibbins and Proctor the partner had voluntarily undertaken to look after the 7 year old child, she therefore had a duty towards the child.
In Stone v Donbinson, Stone’s sister fanny had come to live with them, she was eccentric and often stayed in her room for several days without eating anything. Fanny suffered from anorexia. Dobinson helped wash fanny on one occasion and occasionally prepared food for her. Fanny died of malnutrition, Fanny was in need of emergency medical care for days, if now weeks before her death. Stone and Dobinson were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter as they had assumed responsibility for Fanny as her carers. Their failure to get help was criminal.
A duty through ones official position –
In R v Dytham the police officer has a duty to the general public. However he failed to help a man, about 30 yards away from him, who had got thrown out a nightclub and had seen 3 men kick him to death. The police officer failed to intervene or to get any help. He told a bystander that he was going of duty. He was convicted of misconduct in a public place. He appealed on the ground that a failure to act does not create criminal liability. He lost.
A duty which arises because the defendant set in motion a chain of events –
It is the concept of owing a duty and being liable through omission.
In the case of Miller, the defendant was living in a squat, he had fell asleep with a lighted cigarette and the mattress had caught fire. He was woken up by the fire, but rather than attempting to put it out or seek help he went into another room and fell asleep. The house caught fire and was badly damaged. He appealed against his conviction for arson and argued that a failure to act is an omission and cannot therefore be established as the actus reus of the offence. He lost: it was possible to create liability by failing to remedy a dangerous situation that one has oneself created.