ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

a crime by reason of the negligence of any servant or agent employed by him.

1 Provided also that it must be shewn that death not only follows but is also caused by the neglect of duty.

Illustrations.

(1.) It is A's duty, by contract, as the banksman of a colliery shaft, to put a stage on the mouth of the shaft in order to prevent loaded trucks from falling down it. A omits to do so either carelessly or intentionally. A truck falls down the shaft and kills B. A is in the same position as if he had pushed the truck down the shaft carelessly or intentionally.

3

(2.) A slings a cask in a manner which is reasonably sufficient for public safety. The cask slips and kills B. A is not criminally responsible merely because he omitted to take further precautions.

(3.) A leaves an unloaded gun leaning against a wall in a friend's room. In his absence B loads it and leaves it loaded where he found it. A points it in sport at C and pulls the trigger. The gun goes off and kills C. A is not criminally responsible merely because he did not examine the gun before he pulled the trigger.

(4.) 5 A, the captain of a steamer, sets B to keep a look out. do so, whereby the steamer runs down a smack and drowns C. criminally responsible for B's omission to look out.

6

B fails to
A is not

(5.) A, acting as a surgeon, physician, or midwife, causes the death of a patient by improper treatment, arising from ignorance or inattention. A is not criminally responsible, unless his ignorance, or inattention, or rashness is of such a nature that the jury regard it as culpable under all the circumstances of the case. It makes no difference whether A is or is not a properly qualified practitioner.

(6.) A, by his servants, makes fireworks in his house contrary to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The servants by culpable negligence cause an explosion which kills B. A is not criminally responsible for B's death.

8

(7.) A being under a legal duty to supply medical aid for his son B, who has confluent small pox, refuses to do so from religious motives, and B dies. It must be shewn that B's life would probably have been prolonged if medical aid had been provided, before A can be convicted of manslaughter.

1 Illustration (7).

2 R. v. Hughes, D. & B. 248.

3 Rigmaiden's Case, 1 Lew. 180. Probably in such a case there would be a civil liability; see Byrne v. Bouder, 2 H. & C. 722.

Foster, 265.

R. v. Allen, 7 C. & P. 153; R. v. Green, 7 C. & P. 156.

R. v. Van Butcher, 3 C. & P. 129; R. v. St. John Long (1st case), 4 C. & P. 398; (2nd case) 4 C. & P. 423; R. v. Williamson, 3 C. & P. 635.

Bennett's Case, Bell, C. C. 1.

8 R. v. Morby, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 571.

ARTICLE 212.

CAUSING DEATH BY OMISSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 211.

1

It is not a crime to cause death or bodily injury, even intentionally, by any omission other than those referred to in the last Article.

Illustration.

(1.) A sees B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned, and B is drowned. A has committed no offence.

ARTICLE 213.

DUTY TO PROVIDE NECESSARIES OF LIFE.

2 Every person under a legal duty, whether by contract or by law, or by the act of taking charge, wrongfully or otherwise, of another person, to provide the necessaries of life for such other person, is criminally responsible if death is caused by the neglect of that duty, and if the person to whom the duty is owing, is, from age, health, insanity, or any other cause, unable to withdraw himself from the control of the person from whom it is due, but not otherwise.

Some of the duties of parents towards children and of masters towards apprentices are defined in Articles 264, 265, and 266.

3

Illustrations.

(1.) A neglects to provide proper food and lodging for her servant, B, (who is of weak mind, but twenty-three years old,) B's life is shortened by such neglect. A is criminally responsible if B was in such an enfeebled state of body and mind as to be helpless and unable to take care of herself, or was under the dominion and restraint of A, and unable to withdraw herself from A's control; otherwise not.

1 R. v. Smith, 2 C. & P. 449. This subject is discussed in a striking manner by Lord Macaulay in his notes on the Indian Penal Code; see, too, Wharton on Homicide, § 72.

2 See cases in Illustrations. Some duties of this sort are imposed by statute. See Articles 264, 265, 266. Draft Code, ss. 159-61.

3 R. v. Charlotte Smith, L. & C. 607.

(2.) 1B, a girl of eighteen, comes from service to the house of her mother, A, and is there confined of a bastard child. A does not provide a midwife, in consequence of which B dies. A is not criminally responsible for this omission.

(3.) 2 A persuades B, an aged and infirm woman, to live in his house, and causes her death by neglecting to supply her properly with food and fire, she being incapable of providing for herself from age and infirmity. A is criminally responsible for his neglect.

ARTICLE 214.

DELEGATION OF DUTY DEFINED IN ARTICLE 213.

If a person delegates the discharge of the duty mentioned in the last Article to his wife or to a servant, and supplies such wife or servant with the means of discharging the duties so delegated, it is the legal duty of such wife or servant to discharge such duties, and it is the legal duty of the man who delegates them to use ordinary care to see that they are properly discharged.

Illustration.

3 A, the sister of B's deceased wife, acts as B's housekeeper, and neglects to give to B's infant child food duly provided by B, and so causes its death. A is criminally responsible for this neglect. If B knew of A's neglect, and permitted her to continue it, he also is responsible, but not otherwise.

ARTICLE 215.

WHEN DIRECT PERFORMANCE OF DUTY IMPOSSIBLE.

It is the legal duty of a person who is unable to provide for any person necessaries which he is legally bound to provide for him to make application to the proper authorities for parochial relief in cases in which such authorities are legally bound to furnish such relief.

1 R. v. Shepherd, L. & C. 147.

2 R. v. Marriott, 8 C. & P. 425.

2 R. v. Bubb, 4 Cox, C. C. 455, 1 Russ. Cr. 681; R. v, Hook, 4 Cox, 455; 1 Russ. Cr. 682.

R. v. Mabbett, 5 Cox, C. C. 339; 1 Russ. Cr. 683.

1

ARTICLE 216.

DUTY OF CARE IN DOING DANGEROUS ACTS.

1 It is the legal duty of every one who does any act which without ordinary precautions is, or may be, dangerous to human life, to employ those precautions in doing it.

Illustrations.

(1.) It is the duty of persons having charge of dangerous things, animals or machinery, to take care of them.

(2) 2 Workmen are employed to throw snow off the roof of a house. It is their duty to see whether people are passing, and to give warning before they throw it down.

8

(3.) It is the duty of people riding, driving, or sailing, to be careful. (4.) A turns out a vicious horse to graze on a common on which people are likely to pass. It is his duty to take proper precautions against its injuring passers by.

(5.) A, B, and C went to practise with a rifle which carried a mile. A handed a board to B, who in C's presence fixed it in a tree, and they all fired at it at a distance of 100 yards, taking no precautions to prevent mischief to persons in the neighbourhood. One of the shots killed a boy in a tree about 200 yards behind the target. All were held guilty of manslaughter.

ARTICLE 217.

DUTY OF PERSONS DOING ACTS REQUIRING SPECIAL SKILL OR

KNOWLEDGE.

5 It is the legal duty of every person who undertakes (ex

How far can it be said to be a legal duty to abstain from doing such acts wantonly even with precautions? Suppose a man, merely for his own amusement or from caprice, took a dangerous wild beast into a public street, using all proper precautions, and suppose the wild beast notwithstanding broke loose and killed some one, would this be manslaughter? I know of no authority on the subject. See Draft Code, s. 162.

2 Cases collected in Wharton on Homicide, §§ 87-93, 99, 125, 107-24; and see 1 Russ. Cr. 864-880.

3 R. v. Dant, L. & C. 567.

▲ R. v. Salmon & Others, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 79. My judgment was nearly in the

terms of Article 216, and the other judgments were to the same effect.

3 R. v. St. John Long, 4 C. & P. 404. (Per Garrow, B.) As to caution, see R. v. St. John Long, 2nd Case, 4 C. & P. 440; see other cases collected in 1 Russ. Cr. (5th ed.) 572-3. Draft Code, s. 162.

cept in case of necessity) to administer surgical or medical treatment, or to do any other lawful act of a dangerous character, and which requires special knowledge, skill, attention, or caution, to employ in doing it a common amount of such knowledge, skill, attention and caution.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »