The Issue Of Criminal Liability

Causation: Had the offender not hit the victim whilst he was walking across the driveway there is no chance he could have died. His death was a direct result of the offender’s actions, as the wounds sustained from the attack killed him shortly after an ambulance arrived on scene.

Strict liability offences are offences which do not require proof of mens rea. This means that the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant voluntarily committed a forbidden act without considering if the defendant had the intention. Strict liability is contained in statutes or statutory instruments, and occasionally found in common law. Common law offences of strict liability include criminal libel and blasphemous libel. Also liability is rarely absolute. Most strict liability offences are regulatory and are involved in environmental protection laws, food, health and safety, the sale of alcohol and many more.

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)

Application: In this case, the defendant Hal, upon witnessing what he believed was a crime of passion between his wife and Norm, intentionally killed Norm with a gun. Norm is dead as a result of the defendant's actions. The cause is the misapprehension of Hal that a crime of passion was occurring between Wanda and Norm. There is no vicarious liability as the victim is not dead because of the act of a third party so this would be a case of direct homicide.

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since, the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin. The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit. There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed. In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow

In Detective Rita Hayes #1234 preliminary investigation reports, she describes vital evidence that stand out to me. Which I consider rules out the option that it was an accident. The evidence found could be used to prosecute the offender when found.

Pluto’s situation is a unique and uncertain one. His brakes malfunction, and immediately afterward he suffers a fainting spell. As a result one man is killed and five children are injured, despite his attempt to avoid casualties. The question is, should Pluto be considered guilty of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm? This question is a loaded one; the determination of whether an act constitutes a criminal offence is difficult. There are many components to consider, specifically the actus reus and the mens rea of both the mechanical and physical failures involved. While the mechanical failure of the car breaks does not constitute a criminal offence, the knowledge of prior fainting spells does. Therefore, Pluto could be considered guilty of

The defendant is homeless. One cold night in January, he breaks into a convenience store to stay warm. He sleeps comfortably for several hours. When he wakes up, he takes approximately $100 worth of food from the store. The defendant 's criminal liability as it applies to the crimes of Burglary, Trespass and Larceny.

To determine the question of Lennie's liability it is essential to take a hard look at the full measure of his conduct. Obviously, Lennie did not perform the act that resulted in the officer's death, that is, he did not actually throw the dart that struck the office but there is a question as to whether or not his actions can be considered an intervening cause.

For many years the courts have used the terms 'recklessness' and 'gross negligence' to describe the fault required for involuntary manslaughter, other than constructive manslaughter, without any clear definition of either term. It was not clear whether these terms were merely two ways of describing the same thing, or whether they represented two distinct conditions of fault.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Chapter 12 section 5 states that “negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) The duty of care that the driver had was to obey the traffic laws. He neglected to obey such laws which ended in an injury to the driver of the truck. There are four elements to negligence. These elements are duty of care, breach, causation and damages.

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.