GNM (invol manls)

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/13

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 12:21 AM on 6/3/25
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai
Chat

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

14 Terms

1
New cards

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.

2
New cards

Adomako

D was leaning on tube helping v breath. ‘Any reasonable anaesthesiologist would have seen it. Leading case for gnm.

3
New cards

R v Broughton

Emphasised connection between Ds breach and vs death. Reasonable man must be able to foresee.

4
New cards

Doneghue v Stephenson

Neighbour principal. Doc is owed to who is closely affected by acts or omissions.

5
New cards

R v singh

Landlord not taking proper care of tenants vents. CO4 poisoning

6
New cards

R v wacker

Smuggled immigrants, lots died from suffocation. Criminal enterprise.

7
New cards

R v bateman

Doctor to patient.

8
New cards

R v stone and dobinson

Voluntary doc

9
New cards

R v pitwood

Contractual doc.

10
New cards

R v dolloway

Even if d was holding onto the reins V would have died. His omission did not cause death.

11
New cards

R v Holloway.

Compared to standards of electrician.

12
New cards

R v misra and Srivastava

Must be an obvious risk of death

13
New cards

R v Bateman

Such disregard for the life and safety that it’s a crim against state.

14
New cards

Andrew’s v dpp

Drove above speed limit and killed pedestrian. Very high degree of negligence.