Vincent had no intention to kill but he was subjected to a duty of care. The test is objective weather the risk would have been obvious to the reasonable sensible and well skilled builder.
Gross negligence is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is apparently acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may be the case where the defendant has caused death but has not intended in causing death or intending serious harm and lacks the mens rea for murder. Gross negligence manslaughter is not depending on an unlawful act to be committed.
Vincent was employed by the church to repair the churches roof.Vincent will be liable for gross negligence. This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) …show more content…
There isn’t a "general" duty of care owed by one person to another (No "good Samaritan rule").A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty (Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 582).
b) A breach of that duty of care which; Vincent breached his duty of care by not accepting and even attempting a job he was not confident about .although Vincent had worked in the building trade for many years, he had no experience of working on historic buildings. A reasonable person in his position would turn down the job as they were not skilled enough to do the job.
c) Causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; unfortunately the roof collapsed killing Gary who was cleaning the church for a wedding. If Vincent did not accept the job Gary would be alive. Vincent’s errors caused the death of Gary. The risk would have been obvious to Vincent. He has many years of experience in trade but none on historical building I believe he should have turned down the job and explained to his client that he wasn’t able to complete the
Gross negligence is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is apparently acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may be the case where the defendant has caused death but has not intended in causing death or intending serious harm and lacks the mens rea for murder. Gross negligence manslaughter is not depending on an unlawful act to be committed.
Vincent was employed by the church to repair the churches roof.Vincent will be liable for gross negligence. This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) …show more content…
There isn’t a "general" duty of care owed by one person to another (No "good Samaritan rule").A duty of care will arise from an act of a person where the requirements of foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness establish such a duty (Donohue v Stevenson (1932) AC 582).
b) A breach of that duty of care which; Vincent breached his duty of care by not accepting and even attempting a job he was not confident about .although Vincent had worked in the building trade for many years, he had no experience of working on historic buildings. A reasonable person in his position would turn down the job as they were not skilled enough to do the job.
c) Causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; unfortunately the roof collapsed killing Gary who was cleaning the church for a wedding. If Vincent did not accept the job Gary would be alive. Vincent’s errors caused the death of Gary. The risk would have been obvious to Vincent. He has many years of experience in trade but none on historical building I believe he should have turned down the job and explained to his client that he wasn’t able to complete the