Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Involuntary Manslaughter - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Caparo Test used to decide if duty owed
        
        Was damage reasonably foreseeable 2. sufificient proximety between C a& D 3. is it just, fair and reasonable to impose duty
      - R v Khan & Khan D drug dealer sold drugs to V and left her alone she died held duty extended to cases like these
      - R v Litchfield D owner boat knew fuel was contaminated sailed anyway resulting in crash and killing 3 crew. Held had a duty to ensure saftey of his crew
    - - breached when D falls below standard of reasonable man
        
        R v Adomoko Oxygen pipe disconnected form patient, doctors gave evidence competent anaethetist would have noticed. and held D fell below standard of reasonable man amounting to gross negligence
    - - But for test
        
        R v Stone & Dobinson Ds let sister stay with them who suffered from anorexia. she was found dead. held theyd assumed duty by taking her in and but for DS negligence she would have lived
    - - R v Bateman D went womans house deliver baby, during which part her uterus came away didnt send her hospital for 5 days where she died. quashed on appeal as doctors did same procedure and no evidence gorss negligence as doctors testified theyd do similarly
- - - - Defined in R v Church "Act which reasonable man would have foreseen SOME harm resulting from actions (arguably confusing for juries as GreviousBH)
    - - But for test
        
        R v White D put poision in mums tea but she died heart attack but for the defendants actions she would have died anyway and charged with attempted murder
      - R v Kennedy confirmed drug dealers cannot be responsible for death where user voluntairly self-administers unless he actually partook in administration as seen in R v Cato
    - - R v Lowe D child died from neglect was quashed on appeal as had to be an act not omission
    - - R v Frankilin confirmed act must be criminal not civil
      - R v Lamb 2 boys playing with gun didnt think it would fire it did killing 1 (the unlawful act)
      - R v Mitchell confirmed transferred malice was sufficent for act
  - - - DPP v Newbury & Jones D 15 pushed stone over bridge killing a person below. Ds conviction upheld on appeal as was unessecary for Ds to forsee some harm due to mens rea of base crime