Involuntary Manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Bateman 1925
A doctor’s negligent treatment of his patient resulted in death. ‘Gross Negligence’ was the basis for criminal liability.
The test stated in that case was:
Does the conduct of the accused show such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment?
Andrews 1937
It was stated that where there is a charge of gross negligence manslaughter, simple lack of care that would constitute to civil liability is not enough. For criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the crime is established.
The statement made above was made by Lord Atkin, who 5 years earlier in the case of Donohue and Stevenson, had made the test for negligence in civil cases.
Donohue V Stevenson 1932
A snail in a ginger beer. The key case that established the principles of duty of care and the neighbour principle
.
It was stated that a duty of care was owed to:
“... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act and that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question”
Adomako 1994
A leading modern case on gross negligence manslaughter. In which the D was an anaesthetist during an eye operation. During the operation the tube supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. After suffering a heart attack, the patient later died as a result of brain injury.
It was testified at the trial that a competent anaesthetist should have noticed the disconnected tube within seconds. The D’s failure to do so was described as ‘abysmal’. His conviction for gross negligence was subsequently upheld by the House of Lords.
Adamako established the three elements required to prove gross negligence manslaughter:
A duty of care exists on the part of the defendant towards the victim
There is a breach of that duty, which causes
Bateman 1925
A doctor’s negligent treatment of his patient resulted in death. ‘Gross Negligence’ was the basis for criminal liability.
The test stated in that case was:
Does the conduct of the accused show such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment?
Andrews 1937
It was stated that where there is a charge of gross negligence manslaughter, simple lack of care that would constitute to civil liability is not enough. For criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the crime is established.
The statement made above was made by Lord Atkin, who 5 years earlier in the case of Donohue and Stevenson, had made the test for negligence in civil cases.
Donohue V Stevenson 1932
A snail in a ginger beer. The key case that established the principles of duty of care and the neighbour principle
.
It was stated that a duty of care was owed to:
“... persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act and that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question”
Adomako 1994
A leading modern case on gross negligence manslaughter. In which the D was an anaesthetist during an eye operation. During the operation the tube supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. After suffering a heart attack, the patient later died as a result of brain injury.
It was testified at the trial that a competent anaesthetist should have noticed the disconnected tube within seconds. The D’s failure to do so was described as ‘abysmal’. His conviction for gross negligence was subsequently upheld by the House of Lords.
Adamako established the three elements required to prove gross negligence manslaughter:
A duty of care exists on the part of the defendant towards the victim
There is a breach of that duty, which causes