D breaches this duty and this breach causes the death
The negligence is gross which the jury considers to be “criminal”
GNM - Test for Duty of Care owed
Established in Donoghue v Stevenson
Singh
Litchfield
Willoughby
Evans
GNM - DoC, Donoghue v Stevenson
Lord Atkinson - neighbour principle
-> there must be a close relationship, with foreseeability of harm
GNM - DoC, Singh
A landlord owed a duty to his tenants to maintain a gas fire
GNM - DoC, Litchfield
The master of a sailing ship owed a duty to the crew when he sailed knowing that the engines would fail
GNM - DoC, Willoughby
there will almost always be a duty of care between doctor and patient
GNM - DoC, Evans
D supplied his sister Carly with heroin, Carly self-injected and D failed to call an ambulance.
Carly died, D was guilty of GNM.
Where D creates a dangerous situation, which has become life threatening, there is a duty to act to save a life
GNM - this duty has caused the death
Ordinary rules of causation apply
Paggett; White
Kimsey
Blaue
Smith; Cheshire; Malcherek; Jordan
Roberts; Williams and Davies
GNM - this duty has caused the death - ‘but for’
the D must be a ‘but for’ cause of death
-> White; Paggett
GNM - this duty caused the death - Kimsey
De Minimus rule
GNM - this duty has caused the death - Blaue
Thin skull rule
GNM - duty has caused the death - Smith; Cheshire; Malcherek; Jordan
Novus actus interveniens by a third party
GNM - this duty has caused the death - Roberts; Williams and Davies
Third parties
GNM - this duty has caused the death
natural but unpredictable events
GNM - final stage - negligence was “gross”
Bateman
-> the negligence is “gross” when it goes:
—> ’beyond matter of mere compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving of punishment‘