In the text it mentioned negligence causing death could be contituted as manslaughter. How is negligence measured? Bear with me and I'll try to explain the best I can, what I mean.
A man is standing on a train track and a train is fast approaching from behind that clearly will not stop and will surely hit the man if he does not move. A second man is close enough to make his way to the man on the tracks and move them both to safety before the train can injure them.
The second man does not offer assistance due to shock or fear or some primal response. The first man is hit by the train and dies.
Could, in your opinion based on your knowledge of law, the second man be tried due to his inactions?
Is there any difference to being "frozen" by fear and not assisting someone and simply refusing to assist? How are the two types of inactivity differentiated?
Cheers,
stan101
re negligent manslaughter by ommission (specifically by ommission, there is a separate negligent manslaughter - i had to go back and re-read textbooks on this - ugghhhhhhh, upon doing this i realise i should have given a better explanation of manslaughter generally, some other time)
i guess it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the person in your fact scenario could be tried, however it would need a teasing out of the facts as they currently stand (in your scenario) to determine whether or not a conviction would be likely or not
the test for negligent manslaughter by ommission
(the second person in your scenario) must be under a legally recognised duty to act; and
(the second person in your scenario) must have failed to act/fulfil the duty in a way that constitutes a high degree of negligence (ie it must be a gross departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person (objective test) in the same position as the second person was in); and
the ommission resulted in the death (of the first person in your scenario)
some examples of a legally recognised duty to act include (but are not limited to):
child/parent relationship;
voluntary assumption of care for helplesss persons;
where a person has created a situation of danger by dealing with dangerous things or doing dangerous acts
note negligent manslaughter by ommission does not require mens rea
unless there was a legally recognisable duty to act it is irrelevant whether the second person in your scenario was too afraid or refused to assist
note, discussed here is a legally recognisable duty to act, not a moral duty to act
if there was a legally recognisable duty to act then there would be much argument as to whether the second person's fear or refusal constitutes a high degree of negligence (as discussed above)
i have not read the judgment in this case and can't therefore comment on the trial judge's findings (and not all reporters understand legal reasoning)
cheers