Criminal Law, the Duty of Care - Case Study Example

TOPIC: LAW (NAME) (COURSE NAME) (INSTITUTIONS NAME) 9th MARCH 2009 In order to argue whether Lily committed a crime after letting her aunt Rose who dependent on her to die for starvation, it is important to know what amounts to criminal acts and whether Lily’s actions amounted to criminal negligence. In criminal law, a person becomes criminally negligent after he or she does the following, omitting to do something that he or she is supposed to do, or doing something that he or she is not supposed to do, and by doing such acts disregards the safety and the live of another person (Saleemi, 2004). Separating the two words, negligence in itself is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do. In this perspective, criminal negligence consists of the following three elements, duty of care, breach of duty of care and the injury to the plaintiff (Saleemi, 2004). The duty of care was defined by Lord Atkin in the case between Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) as the duty to take reasonable care to avoid omissions or acts reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause injury to your neighbor. In defining a neighbour, Lord Atkin stated that a neighbour in law is a person who is so closely and directly affected by your act that you ought reasonably to have him in your contemplation. From the above stated case, it is very true that Rose and Lily were neighbors in law because Rose would be directly affected by any act that Lily committed. Under that yardstick of standard of care, the defendant conduct is measured, that is, whether the defendant did what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances. The duty of care is therefore breached where the defendant fails to exhibit that standard of care required of him. In other words, the defendant is said to have breached the duty of care where a reasonable man in his position would not have done what he did. Following the above argument is therefore true that it is the duty of every individual who is in charge of who has control over something or anything of such a nature that in lack precaution or care in its management or use, the safety, the life or health of another person is endangered, to take reasonable precautions and to use reasonable care to avoid that danger; and he or she is held responsible for causing any consequences which yield to the health or life of an individual by reason of failing to perform the duty bestowed upon him or her. Henmce, in the above case it was the duty of Lily to take proper care of her elderly aunt Rose through feeding her and omitting her acts would endanger the life of her aunt. However, in order to establish whether Lily was guilty of the offence, it is vital through criminal negligence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was indeed owed the duty of care prescribed on her, she omitted to perform her duty and the consequences for omission to perform her duty resulted into the death of the plaintiff, her aunt (Garfield, 2008). To elaborate the three elements further, Lily as a defendant had her aunt in her charge or under her control when she left to be with her “handsome” friend in France and it was of such nature that in the absence of her precaution and care to feed and watch over her elderly aunt Rose, the life, the health and the safety of Rose was endangered resulting into death due to starvation. In this regard, Lily omitted to perform her duty to use reasonable care to avoid the death of her aunt. She was aware of the consequences or she was supposed to foresee the consequences that would arise due to her act of omission to feed her aunt and take reasonable care which an ordinary person in his right mind would have done. The issue of aright mind raises another issue of whether Lily at her time of leaving her aunt to be with her friend was in he right mind. It is true that Lily was in her right mind, because we are not told about her mental inability to make the right decision. As a matter of fact, Lily made a decision to leave her Rose in order o be with her friend in France which in itself shows that at the material time she was able to make her own decision without due regard to the outside influence. To establish criminal negligence on the part of Lily requires proving beyond reasonable doubt that in her conduct, her absence and therefore failure to feed or take proper care of her aunt departed from the standard of care which was present in her to use care that was reasonable in order to avoid the death of her aunt. As a mater of fact, Lily had the standard of care which was incumbent in her, that is, taking proper care of her aunt (Garfield, 2008). By going with her friend in France, she departed from the standard of care that was incumbent in her and as a result caused the death of Rose which is an offence serious enough that demands that the state should intervene and punish her on the basis of the fact that her behaviors were conducted with disregard to the danger and safety of her aunt. From Lily’s case, there was a serious departure from the required standard of a reasonable person in her position which amounted to criminal negligence. The death of her aunt resulted solely from the omission to feed her and take proper care of her which was a duty incumbent in her. Given the fact that Rose was elderly, it is reasonable for a person in Lily’s position to know that Rose’s capability to perform different duties such as paying bills, cooking and many other duties in the house would overwhelm her and thus take as her duty to help and assist her accordingly. However, with due disregard to the above mentioned facts Lily decided to go with her friend to France and left her aunt who dependent on her in everything helpless. In addition, it appears that Lily did not mention to her aunt that she would leave for France which shows that she did the act intentionally foreseeing the repercussions that would follow. Had she due consideration of her aunt, Lily would have informed her aunt of her departure to France and thus prepare her aunt of any other outcome that would follow her absence. A reasonable person in Lily’s position would have sought help from neighbors who would watch over her aunt until her time of return. However, Lily overlooked al the options that would help her aunt at the time she would be absent and proceeded on to France without making proper arrangements that would enable her aunt be taken care of. As a neighbour to her aunt, she failed to undertake proper responsibilities accorded to her by the virtue of the fact that her aunt depended on her so much that any act of omission would affect her. The doctrine of Res ipsa which means that the facts speak for themselves is therefore applicable in this situation. This is because the death of Rose occurred in circumstances in which it ought not to have occurred, for example, had Lily continued with her duty of taking care of her, she would not have starved to death. But because of criminal negligence on the part of Lily, the death occurred. For the above doctrine to be applicable in this situation, it is important to establish whether the following three conditions are satisfied. First, the thing that resulted into the death of Rose, (starvation) must have been under the control of Lily or someone over whom Lily would have delegated the responsibilities before she left for France. Second, Rose’s death from starvation would not have happened without negligence in the part of Lily who had control over Rose’s life. Third, there must be no evidence and explanation as to why or how the death of Rose occurred. From the above three elements, it is true that during the time Lily was with her aunt she managed to control and manage starvation and this is the reason why her aunt was still alive at that time. However, her absence resulted into minimal control of starvation on the part of Rose which eventually controlled Rose’s life resulting into death. As such, Lily had the power to control starvation and Rose would not have died if Lily was present. Her leaving for France with her friend amounted into gross negligence o her duty of care which resulted into Rose’s death. There is no proper explanation as to why Lily decided to leave her elderly aunt who depended on her so much that she abandoned her responsibilities that amounted to a breach of duty of care. A reasonable person in Lily’s position would not have done what she did and thus Lily should face criminal liability for the death of her aunt Rose. REFERENCES Saleemi, N. General Principles of Law, Harvard: Harvard University, 2004 Garfield, A, More Principled Approach to Criminalizing Negligence: A Prescription for the Legislature, (2008) Vol. 65, 875. Read More