Liability
The liability of Jim and the
hospital can be explained by the classical example of watching a man drown in a
shallow river yet making no effort to rescue him. The phrase "Thou shalt
not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive." Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861) was
coined to explain that one will not be held liable for watching another die. Basing
on this, he did no crime. The morality of the deed is what may be in question
especially since there was no danger involved in his attempting to save the
victim.
This can especially be seen in the
fact that he actually went to see if there was anything he could steal from the
victim but left the victim on the floor. Steven punched the victim and left him
gasping for breadth on the floor. The victim was acutely asthmatic and this is probably
the reason why he died. It can be argued that Steven can be charged with assault
but not manslaughter since he had no way of knowing that the victim was
asthmatic. For this same reason, the hospital will not be held liable for
administering drugs that resulted in the victim’s death.
Actus
Reus
In the English criminal law, failure
of taking action or an omission can lead to a person being responsible for a
guilty act (actus reus). Usually,
this kind of actus reus can lead to liability if the law is able to establish a
duty (Cross, 2009). For instance, Stephen hit Stacey and left her laying on the
floor gasping for breadth. It can be agued that he had a duty to check on the
victim to make sure all was well before leaving. Similarly, Jim observed the
victim die and was even come close enough as seen when he came to see if there
was anything he could steal. It is immoral to see someone in dire need of help
and do nothing about it especially if your life was not threatened by the act
of kindness. This fact will make Jim face the charge of Actus Reus
Eggshell
Rule
The novurs actus interveniens principle literally means “a new act of
intervening.” It stipulates that a person’s third party action can actually
serve as intervention for the primary act of omission (Law Teacher, 2009). In
this case, the hospital’s act of administering drugs that the victim was
allergic to can be said to have caused the death of the victim thereby negating
the guiltiness of the accused. furthermore, the eggshell rule states that if a
person had a skull that was as fragile as an egg and another person unaware of
this fact came and caused damage to this person, then he would be guilty as
“ignorance is no defense” (Hodsgan J., 2007). This in mind, it can be argued
that the accused is in fact innocent as the hospital administered the wrong
drug albeit in ignorance. The murder can be said to have been done by the
hospital staff and not by Steven
Mens
Rea
The mens rea principle starts that unless a person’s mind is guilty,
then the he should not be considered guilty.(Martin, 2003). The implication of
this is that an actus reus can’t hold
water unless there is a mens rea. From
this point of view, Steven can not be said to be guilty. There is no proof that
it was a premeditated act. It was merely a dispute that resulted in a fight. When
Steven left the victim on the floor, there was no proof that he left him for
dead. He was in fact ignorant of the fact that the victim was acutely allergic.
The same school of thought can be
used to acquit the hospital. The staff was in fact acting in good faith when
they administered the drugs. They didn’t know that the victim was allergic to
the specific drugs and they were in fact administered the drugs to save his
life and not to take it. The minds of the staff, just like that of Steven, can
therefore be said to be free from guilty and thereby in the spirit of the mens rea principle, they were innocent
of the act of murder.
References
Cross, N. (2009) Criminal law and Criminal Justice.
Sage Publication Ltd, London
Hodsgan
, J. (2007) The Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Law Teacher, (2009) Negligence -
Causation and Remoteness.[online] available from http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/lecture-notes/negligence-causation-lecture.php
[accessed 28th October 2010]
Martin,
A. (2003) Oxford Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moses, R. (2001) Criminal law silver bullets.
.[online] available from http://stclguns.homestead.com/SilverBullets.html
[accessed 28th October 2010]
No comments:
Post a Comment