Criminal Liability - Case Study Example

Criminal Liability Case Case Facts Victim: Sam Perceived offenders: Angela, Brian and Daniel Involvement: Angela takes Sam for a walk and lets him play as she reads the novel. The child strays to the boating lake without notice. Brian, a professional rescuer watches this and bets that the child will slip into the lake. The child actually slips and Daniel attempts the rescue minutes later, but it was too late. The rescue attempt involves and inadequate string that could not help. The child succumbs to the accident as Daniel watches, sitting. Introduction Sam’s death might have been accidental, but from the facts of the case, there seems to be some individuals who should have been held responsible from lacking to prevent the death of the young boy. The parent, Angela took the boy for a walk but instead concentrated on reading her novel. At the same time, there are two individuals who watched the child drown, and had powers to prevent the same. This, however, is preempting and the cases should be argued from a legal point of view to try coming up with a reasonable judgment (Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, 2012). This paper will try establishing liability to the three major involved individuals; Angela, Brian and Daniel. From the facts, this treatise will look at the case from an angle of duty of care as well as negligence, and other factors that may arise thereof. Negligence and the duty of care In legal perspectives, failing to do something that a reasonable person would have done for a certain thing amounts to negligence. In order for a person to be held responsible for an act that resulted from negligence, this person must be proved to have owed the plaintiff some duty of care. Affirming that a person owed the duty of care to another person results from the assumption in law that people should conduct their affairs in levels required and expected of a reasonable person. Negligence claims must be preceded by three actions that must all be met, for a plaintiff to claim any compensation from the defendant. In the first place, the defendant ought to owe some duty of care to the plaintiff, the duty must have been breached and the action must have harmed the plaintiff (Cardi, 2011). Establishing the duty of care liability for the three defendants in this case, therefore, should assume the trend of establishing that the three things were met for all the cases. The cases will be argued in reference to legal procedures and other past cases. The case at hand has an element of Actus Reus, where the three can be charged with omissions that resulted to the physical crime of loss of life as in the case of Schad v. Arizona (1991). The culprits are liable to be charged with manslaughter, as will be argued in the next sections of this paper. Angela, as mother of Sam took the child for a walk and instead concentrated on her novel, rather than watching over the child. The child incidentally strayed to the boating lake and eventually drowned. Angela was responsible for the safety of the son given that she is the one who decided to take him out for a walk. Being the decision maker as to where to go, she was obliged to watch over him as he played. The place was within proximity of a boating lake and thus there was the obvious probability of imminent danger to a person who knew not how to swim (Kidner, 1987). A classic explanation to the duty bestowed on the mother and the reason for holding her liable can be found in the Caparo test as found in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). In this case, the judges ruled that or there to be duty of care, a person there needs to be some elements that require to be fulfilled; foreseeability of an action, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonability for a duty of care to be imposed. Angela was reasonably supposed to be aware of the environs that she exposed her son to, and thus common law puts her under a supervisory obligation over the son. The environment within which the son was playing around was within the proximity of a boating lake, and therefore the child was vulnerable to dangers that might have arisen from the lake. On proof of lack omission of the duty of care as required in law, Angela is therefore culpable of negligence and is liable for the death of Sam, her son. Angela can still be held liable for a crime given the conditions as stated in Ballard v. Aribe (1986). In this case, there does not need to be foreseeable facts that could lead to the liability being passed to the defendant. The supporting factor arises from the fact that the said neglect is directly related to the defendant and had a sufficient likelihood that it resulted to the harm that befell the young boy. This fact solidifies the argument seeking to find Angela guilty of negligence and thus liable for prosecution and guilty of the neglect of a duty of care offence that led to her son’s death (Ballard v. Aribe 1986). Brian is culpable of professional negligence for watching Sam head to a risky boating dam that he would have slipped into and not preventing it. Considering the Caparo assumption of responsibility test, whereby the defendant should have assumed the required obvious responsibility towards the victim/claimant, Brian is guilty. On seeing that the child was approaching a risky part of a lake, and considering that he was in proximity to the same area, Brian is liable of an omission offence, where he assumed the responsibility of a minor for whom he owed some duty of care. The ruling assumed by the judges in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990) indicated that for a person to be charged with neglect of the duty of care, such a person should have failed the threefold Caparo test. As for Brian’s case, the negligent actions that he is culpable of were reasonably foreseeable. He even went ahead to bet with his friend Chad that Sam would slip into the lake. The second part of the test was the distance between the parties. Brian was arguably close to Sam owing to the fact that he was within the boating lake area. According to the case, the third step can be argued from the Brian actions of watching Sam approach the boat and instead of warning him, he bet with a friend. Would he have acted towards the same, the child would have been spared and probably the mother would not have been held liable for the same demise of her son. R v Instan (1893) further solidifies the posed argument owing to the manner of relation between the two. In the case of R v Instan, the defendant was living with a sick person who could not have taken care of herself. She had full knowledge of the condition and did nothing about the disease leading to the death of the victim. It was argued that the defendant had a moral obligation that when omitted led to the death of the victim. Inasmuch as not all moral obligations lead to legal duties, all such duties are founded on moral obligations and thus there was the necessary reasonable requirement to ensure that the life of the victim is sustained. Simply stated, Brian had the legal duty founded on a moral obligation to ensure that Sam did not slip into the lake. In his case, there was no attempt to prevent the same. An attempt to prevent such would have set him free. Such an instance is again supported by R v Ruffell (2003) where the defendant and later appellant is convicted for manslaughter as a result of negligence. Part I of the (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, sec.1; Children Act 1989) protects all persons under the age of 16 from neglect. In this section, amongst other things, a person above the age of sixteen, who is found guilty of neglecting a person below that age in a manner that is likely to cause danger to him or her is guilty of an offence and is liable for a fine and/or imprisonment to a term as may be decided by the judge but not exceeding two years. Brian’s case is further fortified by R v Dytham (1979). In this case, the judges upheld a liability of omissions against Dytham, for failing to act. Dytham, a police officer based at St. Helens witnessed a bouncer beating a clubber to death, as his shift was coming to an end. The officer however took no action but drove off. The officer was convicted of misconduct while in a public office. According to the judges, the officer would have acted in defense of the clubber whether or not he was on duty or not. In the same sense, Brian would have acted in a manner that would have ensured that the child was not in danger. Instead of betting about his slipping into the lake, he would have raised an alarm or tried to prevent the same from happening. This is a clear indicator of his guilt of and child neglect offence. Daniel’s case is a bit different from the previous two considering that he attempted to rescue Sam from the lake, though using a feeble string that broke. On his part, Daniel can be seen to have fulfilled a moral obligation and thus a legal duty of attempting to rescue the child. The means by which he did that are, however, questionable. His case did not fulfill the required liability test for professional negligence as much as the harm was reasonably foreseeable, he went ahead to attempt a rescue mission. Failure of the rescue efforts can be justly blamed on Daniel as the rope might have been the only material within reach as at the time of the accident. Daniels case lacks the Men’s Rea considering no proof of criminal intent as he attempted to use the weak string to save the child from drowning. His case can be complicated by the fact that he can be considered to have carelessly handled the emergency considering that he had special skills that he did not apply properly. In such a case, the case can look into his character to determine the type of person he is and what he would have done to save the situation. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) demands for a duty of care despite no prior relationship thus Daniel might as well be liable. This evidenced by the ruling made on the beer manufacturer. Conclusion The case at hand involved various parties who were watching and three parties directly related to the happenings. Two of the parties, Angela and Brian can be found liable for an offence considering the moral obligation for a duty of care that was naturally bestowed on them. This obligation was not met and resulted to the death of the child. The death occurred in a manner that both of this parties would have reasonable prevented. The mother would have been more watchful of the son whilst Brian, on noticing the risk would have raised a warning. Brian was thus careless on the matter and would have had some prior precautions. Daniel was involved in the matter but despite the failure to assist the boy, he attempted to and thus showcased his care. He might not have achieved whatever was required of him but I find no criminal offense that connects him to the crime. Daniel can however be held liable for the death due to the fact that he had special skills for saving a drowning person and thus did not apply them effectively for the matter at hand. Bibliography Ballard v. Aribe, (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 564, 572 n.6  Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] AC 465 Cardi, J. (2011). The Hidden Legacy of Palsgraf: Modern Duty Law in Microcosm, 91 B.U.L. Rev. 1873. Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo.5 c.12) Children Act 1989, Part I, Section 1 Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 Hobart Community legal service Inc. (2014). Negligence and the duty of care. [online]. Retrieved http://www.hobartlegal.org.au/tasmanian-law-handbook/accidents-and-insurance/negligence/negligence-and-duty-care Kidner, R. 1987. Resiling from the Anns principle: the variable nature of proximity in negligence. Legal Studies 7 (3). R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450  R v Ruffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122 Schad v. Arizona [1991] 501 U.S. 624  Sappideen C, Vines P, Grant P & Watson W, [2012]. Torts: Commentary and Materials, Sydney: Thomas Reuters. Read More