So i'm currently studying gross negligence manslaughter and i'm confused about the principle of bateman which it states:
The defendent is liable if his actions "shows such disregard for the safeties of others" and goes beyond a "mere matter of compensation between subjects"
What does these two quotes mean?? Help!!! i'm trying to do a past paper and i don't really know how to apply bateman because i'm confused at the principle
Turn on thread page Beta
A2 LAW - Gross negligence manslaughter help! watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Itshafsaa; 29-10-2015 at 19:35.
- 29-10-2015 19:33
- 30-10-2015 01:18
I'm pretty sure Bateman is just the authority to say that it's down to the jury to decide whether or not the acts of the defendant were sufficiently serious enough to deem them criminal.
Although this is Gross Negligence Manslaughter, the act has to be criminal. Where it says "goes beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects" I believe this is just saying that it has be serious enough that it surpasses a the civil negligence (whereby compensation is awarded) into criminal. Where it says "shows such disregard for the safeties of others" It is what it says... Such as taking no safety precautions when the act was carried out, then clearly the defendant has disregarded the safety. They seem like the same point - disregarding safety is serious and thus criminal.
I can't remember the name, but there's a case study where people were hiding in a lorry which had no air being let in. When the lorry reached the destination they were all dead.
Work through the Adomako test...
Duty of Care - Yes, the lorry drivers voluntarily took care of the people hiding (Stone v Dobinson)
Breach of Duty of Care - Yes, they fell under the standards expected of them, they did nothing to let air through
Was it criminal? Yes, they have "disregarded safety" by not opening any vents. Therefore serious enough to be criminal
Did the gross negligence cause the death? Was there any intervening acts? They were the factual cause (Pagget) "but for" not opening vents v would not have died. They seem to be the legal cause i.e. operating and substantial (Smith) and they were more than a minimal cause (Kimsey) therefore no breaks in the chain.
I'm not sure if that's actually how the case panned out, but that's just an example of how you run through the test. This was off the top of my head and thus not 100% accurate. I'm also studying A2 law and need to know this stuff. So, if you do find out if it's something different to what I've said. Please do say