Negligence Vs Wilson

The Appellate Division also concluded that the evidence was legally enough to establish the defendant’s attempt to kill one of the persons in the victim’s group. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. “The doctrine of transferred intent serves to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime he or she intended to commit even when because of bad aim or some other “lucky mistake” the intended target was not the actual victim.”(People V. Birreuta, 162 Cal.App.3d 454, 460, 208, Cal.Rptr. 635, 639) The fact that the transferred intent provisions of Penal Law 125.25 (1) permit prosecution for causing the death of an unintended

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

A woman by the name Michele Wanko was charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and possessing an instrument of crime. Michele shot and killed her husband. Michele and her husband William Wanko lived in Philadelphia. It was a night when these two decided to put the children to bed and have a few drinks. They both had been drinking that night, for exactly six hours straight. They were drinking vodka and juice all night long, now with drinking that long period of time, the couple had to have been drunk. Because someone constantly drinking for a long period of time, there is going to be some type of impact from the alcohol. William wanted to teach his wife how to shoot a gun, and they decided to go into the basement and begin shooting. When she retrieved the gun from their safe, she instantly aimed the gun at her husband and shot him in his chest. He looked at her and asked her why she shot him before collapsing on the ground. The police were called, and William was pronounced dead at the hospital and Michele was charged. Some may look at this case different and

On August 9, 2014 police officer Darren Wilson heard a call on his radio about a shoplifting in progress. It was then that Wilson proceeded on with his day only to encounter 18-year-old Michael Brown and 20-year-old Dorian Johnson were walking in the middle of the street; both of which matched the description of the call that had occurred earlier. The events of that day resulted in Brown’s death. This ultimately aggravated the citizens of Ferguson, who then protested in an effort to stand up for Brown who they believed was killed while surrendering. Considering all the evidence, the grand jury should not have indicted officer Wilson because the witness statements and the autopsy are in favor of what Wilson had reported.

The mens rea element is also required for someone to be accused for murder. It would have to be verified that Willow intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Larry through a direct or oblique intent. Direct intention, as supported in Moloney , arises where the defendant’s purpose is to kill or cause serious bodily harm and will be treated as failure if it does not occur. Oblique intention, as applied in Woollin , occurs where death or serious bodily harm is a virtual certainty due to the actions of the defendant, considering some unforeseen intervention. The defendant must have appreciated that his actions would lead to this outcome.

Due to his injuries, Second Lieutenant Wilson was unable to attend court to give evidence. Upon learning of this, the jury informed the Coroner that based on the evidence that had been presented so far, they felt there would be no need for an adjournment to hear the Lieutenant’s evidence. Having retired briefly to consider the facts, they reconvened, returning a verdict of ‘Accidental Death.’

The sole question for this Court to address is - would Gary Seaton have been entitled to recover from the defendants but for the fact the injury resulted in death? The Unequivocal answer to that question is yes, given that he was exposed and first injured

The casualty helps in deciding if the case is the first degree or second degree. Furthermore, in some jurisdiction, the degrees of manslaughter are known as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and non-negligent or negligent manslaughter. A person who has intentions to harm victims will face the most serious forms of manslaughter. Any offender that carries out an assault in a spontaneous act of violence with little time of deliberation will be legally processed as a first-degree manslaughter case. When a person kills or harms someone because of speeding, carelessness, or recklessness these cases or most of the time are considered as second-degree manslaughter. These types of cases consideration are the negligent or illicit behavior of the offender. Nonetheless, in this article it shows the commitment to regard provocation manslaughter as an offense as regulating hypothetical issues and that it is conceivable to do this as a functional issue (Huigens, 2011). The best hypothetical depiction of provocation manslaughter is as an offense and not as a partial justification defense or as an incomplete reason commenced a fractional loss of dependable

c) Constructive manslaughter, when the accused did not want to kill but did so accidentally during the commission of the crime.

As the offender murdered the victim with a broken bottle while intoxicated. We are able to compare Actus reus and Mens rea. The offender stabbed the victim in the throat and face, which was the guilty act. As the offender as was holding the bottle and slashed the victim's face and throat. As the offender was intoxicated, Mens rea would've been harder to prove, as it was unsure whether he had an intention or an unstable mental state throughout the attack. Although it is believed the offender had an intention, as he made the weapon and attacked the victim twice. The category of the crime is considered crimes against a person, under the homicide section but more specifically murder. This crime was considered murder, as the offender had intent o inflict serious bodily harm, which resulted in death.

In order to establish a claim in the tort of negligence, according to Percy H Winfield[1] 'Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law: such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for liquidated damages '. It is for Grace as the claimant where falls the burden of proof, to demonstrate that the negligence of her physical injury was due to the tortious liability of the Police, Ambulance Service, CURO and the Heath Authority as the defendants in order to claim damages. Furthermore will look at whether tortious liability can arise towards Brian as an occupier for his negligence which resulted in the firemen 's deaths.

. After of series of questions, “The judge felt puzzled. Here was a clear case of homicide, but whether it was manslaughter or premeditated murder was impossible to tell.” (215)

Justice Tatting “emotionally torn” between sympathy and a feeling of hate and aversion. He did not agree with Justice Foster’s arguments in overruling the convictions. He condemned the “state of nature” and unsatisfied with Justice Foster’s decision to place the “law of contract” above the “law against murder”. He believed that the present case could not be treated as self defence because it might raise a situation which would be difficult to deal with. The role of emotions made it impossible for him to convict the defendants.

The Defendant in this matter has admitted guilt in respect to the charge of Killing in the Course of Dangerous Driving contrary to Section 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act Chapter 220. This Court is tasked with imposing a just sentence in respect to the charge as a result of an accident that occurred on the 14th October 2012 in the area of Adelaide Road. The charge is a very serious offence which resulted in the loss of the life of Shawn Davis.

It can be argued that this goes much further than the traditional duty situations. If this examination is correct, then this form of manslaughter has certainly a very wide scope.