Crime XXXXXXV - Involuntary Manslaughter XI
It
is also easier to establish gross negligence manslaughter in instances where
the defendant owes the victim a duty of care and death resulted from a failure
of the defendant to comply with that duty of care.
For
example, a train driver or even a bus driver for the matter, owes his or her
passengers a duty of care to ensure that the train or the bus is driven in the
manner that is prescribed by the law and that all the safety requirements are
complied with.
In
R v Singh (1999) the landlord left his son in charge of his property in Ipswich
while he was away and during that time one of the tenants died of carbon
monoxide poisoning. The defendant was convicted and the defense appealed.
The
conviction was upheld. The defendant owed the victim a duty of care to ensure
that the amenities on his property were in good working order and a failure to
do so had led to the death of the victim.
In
R v Bowles and Bowles (2000) (Corporate Manslaughter) the defendants were
owners of a haulage company. The driver of one of their lorries had been working
excessively long hours, above what was advisable or allowed, and as a result
fell asleep while driving and caused an accident on the motorway which killed
two motorists. At the time he was in a dangerously exhausted state and had been
driving in excess of 60 straight hours without proper breaks or rests.
The
owners of the company were charged and convicted of corporate manslaughter. It
was their failure to adhere to proper guidelines and safety measures that had
caused the accident.
In
R v Great Western Trains (2000) (Corporate Manslaughter) the automatic warning
system on a train was not working and was the cause of a train crash between a
passenger train moving from Swansea to London and a freight train. 125 people
were killed in the ensuing accident.
The
driver had ignored two warning signals and was not paying attention at the time
but despite that the prosecution was unable to prove that any senior executive
of the company was responsible for the accident and the requirement that an
individual of the company be guilty of manslaughter (doctrine of
identification) before the company can be held to be liable or responsible was
not satisfied. As it stands it is a prerequisite to establishing corporate
manslaughter.
Nonetheless,
the company pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for the accident.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment