Omissions - Case Law

A niece lived with her aunt who became ill with gangrene in her leg and was unable to feed herself or call for help. The niece neither fed nor summoned help for her even though she remained in the house and ate her aunts food. The aunt's dead body was found in the house decomposing for about a week. The niece was convicted of manslaughter. 

A duty will be owed by anyone who voluntarily undertakes to care for another, whether through age infirmity, illness etc. The duty may be expressed or implied.

He was a signalman employed by the railway company to look after a level crossing and ensure the gate was shut when the train was due. He left the gate open & was away from his post, with the result that someone crossing was hit and killed. The court rejected his argument that his duty was owed simply to the railway company: he was paid to look after the gate and protect the public. He was convicted of manslaughter.

If someone is paid to do a job they owe a duty to anyone who my be affected by their failure to do that job properly. They do not just owe a duty to their employer. 

A 7 yr old girl with her father and his common law wife. The father had several children from an earlier marriage. He and his partner kept the girl separate from the father's children and deliberately starved her to death. Both were convicted of manslaughter.

He owed a duty of care to her as her father and she voluntarily assumed a duty. Their omission was criminal.

 

Fagan was directed to park his car by PC David Morris. He drove his car onto the constables foot. PC Morris said "Get off, you're on my foot!", but Fagan responded "F*** you. You can wait!" & switched off his car engine. PC Morris repeated his request for Fagan to move, several times. Eventually F reversed slowly off the officers foot. Fagan was charged with assault.

The Magistrates were unsure whether Fagan had deliberately or accidentally driven onto PC Morris's foot; however they were satisfied that he had 'knowingly, provocatively and unnecessarily allowed the wheel to remain on the foot' afterwards and convicted. The Divisional Court upheld the conviction.