Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• ... established a 3 part test to decide whether a duty of care is owed

  Caparo v Dickman
• There is a duty of care with doctor and patient and negligence can be so gross, it can amount to a criminal offence.

  Adomako
• The death must have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach

  Broughton
• The duty of care doesnt need to be contractual

  Singh, Litchfield
• Other situations can lead to a duty of care

  Khan and Khan
• The fact that the D is party to an illegal act is irrelevant

  Wacker
• The duty of care arises when the D has created circumstances that have become life threatening.

  Evans
• The jury must conclude that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a 1) serious

  Rudling
• The jury must conclude that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and 2) obvious risk of death

  Rose
• In cases concerned with allergies, the D is only guilty if they knew of the V's condition

  Zaman