1/13
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
GNM
Requirements for gnm come from r v adomako , recently confirmed in r v Broughton. Adomako had four tests which have to be satisfied,
Must be proved D owed DOC.
Doneghue and stevenson developed the ‘neighbour principle’. Anyone who is closely affected by ur acts and omissions.
But other duty situations have been developed through case law.
R v singh: landlord
R v wacker: criminal enterprise doc
R v bateman: doctor to patient
R v stone and do I son: doc voluntarily assumed
R v pitwood: contract doc
Apply.
Breach of duty
D compared to reasonable man. Eg r v Holloway d compared to electrician.
Apply
Ds breach caused Vs death.
Causation
Ds conduct is gross negligence
R v bateman: such disregard to life and safety, crime against state.
Apply
R v adomako conduct of D was so bad in all circumstances it’s a criminal act or omission.
Apply.
Objective risk of death
R v mista and srivastava: must be an objective risk of death reasonable man can foresee.r v Broughton confirmed it must be foreseeable.
Adomako
D was leaning on tube helping v breath. ‘Any reasonable anaesthesiologist would have seen it. Leading case for gnm.
R v Broughton
Emphasised connection between Ds breach and vs death. Reasonable man must be able to foresee.
Doneghue v Stephenson
Neighbour principal. Doc is owed to who is closely affected by acts or omissions.
R v singh
Landlord not taking proper care of tenants vents. CO4 poisoning
R v wacker
Smuggled immigrants, lots died from suffocation. Criminal enterprise.
R v bateman
Doctor to patient.
R v stone and dobinson
Voluntary doc
R v pitwood
Contractual doc.
R v dolloway
Even if d was holding onto the reins V would have died. His omission did not cause death.
R v Holloway.
Compared to standards of electrician.
R v misra and Srivastava
Must be an obvious risk of death
R v Bateman
Such disregard for the life and safety that it’s a crim against state.
Andrew’s v dpp
Drove above speed limit and killed pedestrian. Very high degree of negligence.