Search

In this paper, the authors discuss the legal liabilities of the professional engineer as both the engineer of record of a project and the construction site manager. In particular, this paper analyzes the case of a fire at an end-user MV/LV substation of a shopping center in Italy, occurred a few years after maintenance works on the electrical installation. The professional engineer who had designed and overseen the construction of the substation was accused of criminal negligence. The authors through the examination of applicable technical standards, as well as of safety regulations, demonstrate that the professional engineer had acted diligently and that there was no ground for the negligence charges. The forensic analysis of the substation fire is provided, and the importance of the chain of custody, the chronological documentation, and the secure storing of all the artefacts and fire-damaged evidence are stressed. The authors believe that this paper can be a useful reference for electrical forensics engineers, investigating similar accidents.

In the first part of the article (�� 1-6), the author deals with the debate about the limits of criminal liability for negligent medical malpractice in a global context characterized by the standardization of clinical practices. The critical consideration of the recent legal reforms in Italy, as well as the prevalent models defended by criminal law scholars, allows the configuration of a paradigm of imputation capable of combining the interests of patients with those of health professionals. In the last part (�� 7-8), the author considers how the same ���balanced��� ���liberal as well as solidaristic��� criterion could allow regulating medical liability for adopting indications provided by Artificial Intelligence systems. The conclusions (�� 9) emphasise how standardisation and automation processes find an insurmountable obstacle in the defence of pluralism, autonomy and the ethics of responsibility., BioLaw Journal - Rivista di BioDiritto, N. 1 (2019)

В статье автор ставит вопрос о видах ответственности врачей. Раскрывается понятие врачебной ошибки. Рассматриваются основания ответственности, основные элементы, квалификация действий врачей. Поднимается вопрос вины. Анализируются возможные последствия, наступающие при допущенных ошибках врачей., In the article the author raises the question of the types of responsibility of doctors. The concept of medical error. Grounds of responsibility. Main elements. The issue of guilt is raised. Qualification of the actions of doctors. Analyzed the possible consequences of the mistakes made by doctors. Qualification issues

The article deals with problem of joint criminal behavior of several subjects in reckless crimes.The author has exposed the genesis of discussion approaches concerning co-operation in domestic and foreign doctrine, as well as examples of co-infliction in crimes in terms of scientific and technological progress, confirmed by judicial practice. He has noted a spread of crimes with signs of co- infliction in the area of traffic, characterized by the guilt of several vehicles’ drivers. He has argued that the criminal law and judicial practice artificially divide these acts into several reckless crimes. Such an approach leads to an objective attitude to accuse one person for the result of criminal negligence behavior of other actors. He has disproved that there is a position in theory and court practice that only one person can be guilty of a road traffic crime.There is the critical analysis of the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the practice of courts to apply legislation on road traffic offenses concerning the criminal liability of two or more drivers who have caused an emergency. Taking into account the theory, expert and judicial practice, the author has made the analysis of the concept «emergency situation» as an indication of the objective side of these crimes and its significance for co-infliction.He has concluded that co-infliction in a crime should be regulated by criminal law which in the theoretical and applied aspects requires the definition of: doctrinal principles of the institution of co-infliction; the concept of co-infliction in a crime and its features; forms of reckless co-infliction; types of participants in co-infliction; delimitation of co-infliction from complicity in a crime; peculiarities of criminal liability of subjects of infliction and their punishment; system of rules concerning co-infliction in a crime for introduction into criminal legislation., У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство.

The article introduces analysis of subjective grounds for guilt – a necessary condition for criminal liability of every person. Guilt is defined as a condemned and punishable by the state culprit’s integral relation (either intentional or through negligence) with the crime or criminal misdemeanour. The article reveals guilt’s connection with general attributes of a criminal act (age, capacity) and puts forward a justification for a state’s right and obligation both in legal and social sense to punish culprits. The article is based on research of application of guilt concept in case-law since the Lithuanian Criminal Code came into force (May 1, 2013). It shows that occasional defects and mistakes occur as unclear, ambiguous conclusions about forms, contents of guilt or as inconsistent characterizations of guilt forms, separate features of its sorts. Also, consequences caused by these mistakes for participants in the criminal process are evaluated. The article also explores provisions of criminal law which determine the concept of guilt. Analysis led to conclusion that reckless guilt in the Criminal Code is defined insufficiently, because it does not provide any description of intellectual reckless guilt (criminal negligence) or is described only partially (criminally false assumption). In justification of negligent guilt in culprit’s criminal act, objective and subjective criteria should be used for both forms of negligence. Also, differences and similarities of criminal negligence and criminally false assumption are presented.

‘Attempted negligence’ is a category of criminal offense that many jurists and philosophers have law have deemed conceptually incoherent. In his Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law, Gideon Yaffe challenges this dismissal, anchoring his argument in cases of what he calls ‘mental self-management’ in which agents plan to bring about that they perform unintentional actions at a later time. He plausibly argues that mental self-management-type attempted negligence is possible. However, his account raises the question whether such attempts can be successful: whether, in other words, attempts to perform unintentional actions at a later time could issue in actions that are, indeed, unintentional. Intuitively, at least, it would seem that we should answer in the affirmative. However, that answer poses problems for a plausible and widely-held account of intentional action. Al Mele, responding to Yaffe’s account, has pointed out this problem without, I think, providing a satisfactory resolution. I propose another way of vindicating the possibility of successful attempted negligence with small, if significant, revision to the standard view of intentional action. In these cases, I argue, agents fail to act intentionally because they render themselves, through their acts of self-management, unaware that they are successfully executing their intentions. Moreover, I argue that these agents’ intentions to bring about that they perform unintentional actions do not commit them to acting intentionally because of the nature of intentions to bring about actions. I offer an account of the intention to bring about that one A’s and defend it against some objections.

Lawyers’ knowledge of technology — how to provide counsel with sufficient knowledge to be able to effectively challenge the reliability of those technologies (electronic systems and devices) that produce the most frequently used kinds of evidence, e.g.: electronically produced records; mobile phone tracking evidence; breathalyzer/intoxilyzer devices; and, software programs for discovery’s “technology assisted review” stage. More specifically the problem is collectively made up of these individual problems: (1) lawyers don’t know such evidence-producing technology sufficiently well so as to be able to challenge its performance by effective cross-examination and with their own expert witnesses (if Legal Aid will pay for them). (2) law schools don’t teach courses on the necessary interaction between different kinds of technology and the necessary flexibility of rules of procedure as they should be applied in regard to, electronic discovery, disclosure, preliminary inquiries, and admissibility voir dires. See e.g., R. v. Oland 2015 NBQB 245, and, R. v. Oland 2015 NBQB 244, being two pre-trial voir dires on the admissibility of mobile phone tracking evidence for a 2nd degree murder trial. (3) continuing professional development seminars, conference, (CLE) etc., don’t provide such information about technology; (4) the problem is a moving target, i.e., technology is constantly changing and therefore so will the types of technology that produce the most frequently used kinds of evidence; (5) the huge access to justice (A2J) — unaffordable legal services problem means an ever-increasing number of persons appearing in courts, particularly criminal courts, without lawyers, thus greatly increasing the probability of wrongful convictions and wrongful guilty pleas — such unrepresented persons can’t challenge the complex sources of the evidence used against them; (6) Prosecutors don’t know such technology either, and therefore can’t inform investigating officers what to watch out for and obtain; (7) the police aren’t trained about such technical sources, such that the prosecutor’s duty to disclose, “the fruits of the investigation” that R. v. Stinchcomb 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC, Nov. 7, 1991), requires be disclosed to defence counsel, may be very inadequate, but defence and prosecuting counsel, and their law school professors don’t know what they don't know as to technology; (8) because most of the evidence used in both criminal and civil proceedings now comes from the same sources, most of the great complexity of rules that now burden electronic discovery in civil proceedings, should apply to disclosure in criminal proceedings, but so far, they don’t; (9) lawyers and police officers don’t know about the National Standards of Canada (or the comparable, U.S., DoD’s 5015.2 standard for records management) that establish the required practices and procedures for the proper operation of such technology, such as electronic records managements systems' technology; (10) at a preliminary inquiry, counsel cannot specify whether “committal for trial is in issue,” if the quality of the, manufacturing, use, and maintenance of the technology that produces the prosecution’s evidence is not known; (11) defense counsel needs a constitutional right to a traditional full preliminary inquiry so as to be able to cross-examine witnesses (or demand that witnesses be made available for cross-examination) to learn enough about the technology that produced the evidence to be used by the prosecution at trial; But instead, Bill C-75, Second Reading, June 11, 2018 (in the Canadian Parliament), proposes to restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by life imprisonment, and to strengthen the judge’s ability to limit the issues to be explored and the witnesses to be heard, i.e., the proposed amendments would abolish the preliminary inquiry for all but those offences involving a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, which offences range from murder to criminal negligence causing death. Law societies have to formally recognize a “legal research lawyer specialist” for each major area of law, part of whose stock-in-trade would be knowledge of such frequently used, evidence-producing technologies. Such innovation is now necessary so as to make available to all lawyers such knowledge in aid of preparing competent cross-examinations and arguments with which to challenge the reliability of such frequently used sources of evidence, and to argue how the rules of procedure that control proceedings concerning, discovery, disclosure, and admissibility, must be applied flexibly so as to be compatible with constitutional requirements as to "fair trial," and, "an opportunity to make full answer and defense. But, because few law firms would have sufficient volume of production to be able to employ such highly specialized lawyers, they would have to be made available to other lawyers in support services operating at cost. However, law societies have no history of doing either creating specialist legal research lawyers, or support services.

У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство. The article deals with criminal-legal issues of co-infliction in a crime. The author has studied the genesis of approaches to the notion of co-infliction and its relation to the doctrine of complicity in criminal law. He has analyzed the judicial practice related to reckless co-infliction. He has outlined the scope of matters concerning the introduction of co-infliction in a crime into the current criminal law. В статье рассмотрены уголовно-правовые вопросы сопричинения в преступлении. Исследован генезис подходов относительно понятия сопричинения и его связи сучением о соучастии. Про-анализировано судебную практику, связанную с совершением неосторожного сопричинения. Очерчено круг вопросов, связанных с имплементацией сопричинения в преступлении в действующее уголовное законодательство.

EnglishThe ongoing reforms demonstrate how the so-called “post-modernity” may tend towards the recomposition of a new and worthy system of criminal law. Prison detention must, of course, be drastically contained within absolutely necessary limits. At the same time, the principle of re-education (and humanity) of the punishment must permeate the whole system, imposing to lay down rules that are strictly respondent to the need for the recipient’s effective orientation towards the protected assets and values. It is likewise necessary to assure the complete fulfilment of the principles of offensiveness and individual criminal liability, paying the utmost attention to correctly establishing the structure of the criminal offense in its peculiar ‘substantial components’. According to these fundamental rules of criminal law, punishment should be inflicted on the sole assumption of a really dominable and offensive fact; that is a fact committed with intent and actual (criminal intent) or, at least, potential (criminal negligence) knowledge of its effective contents of social disvalue. italianoLe riforme in divenire dimostrano come la c.d. post-modernita possa tendere in realta verso la ricomposizione di un nuovo e meritevole sistema del diritto penale. Di certo, occorre che la detenzione in carcere sia drasticamente contenuta nei limiti dell’assolutamente necessario; mentre, al contempo, il principio di rieducativita (ed umanita) della pena deve permeare l’intero sistema, imponendo di collegare all’esigenza di un effettivo orientamento del destinatario, verso i beni e i valori tutelati, la posizione di norme conoscibili, nonche la piena realizzazione dei principi di offensivita e di personalita della responsabilita penale, prestando la massima attenzione nel fondare correttamente la struttura dell’illecito penale nelle sue peculiari ‘componenti sostanziali’; irrogando la pena sul solo presupposto di un fatto offensivo realmente dominabile e per cio stesso voluto e rappresentato (dolo) o almeno rappresentabile (colpa) negli effettivi contenuti di disvalore sociale.

One proposed way of preserving the link between criminal negligence and blameworthiness is to define criminal negligence in moral terms. On this view, a person can be held criminally responsible for a negligent act if her negligence reflects a deficit of moral concern. Some theorists are convinced that this definition restores the link between negligence and blameworthiness, while others insist that criminal negligence remains suspect. This article contributes to the discussion by applying the work of ethicist Nomy Arpaly to criminal negligence. Although not interested in legal issues herself, Arpaly has a well-developed theory of moral agency that explains moral concern in terms of responsiveness to moral reasons. Introducing her work to the ongoing scholarly debate will be helpful for two reasons. First, while a definition of negligence in terms of moral concern is recognized as one proposed solution to the negligence–blameworthiness problem, authors promoting it have yet to give a systematic account of...

Several human sciences for special qualities like as human's recognition, heredity or human factors have been wining development in recent years. According to those sciences, today, the one of the science knowledge which nobody as individual could do everything without any errors, attains academic common one. There are two standards for criminal negligence. The negligence is decided based on actual offender's conditions in accordance with standard of an act by an ordinary person when he would have been at the same position of offender. The said science knowledge might have an influence on offender's conditions and the standard as an ordinary person for that decision. Especially, it will become doubtful whether the concept of an ordinary person would keep the position as the above standard in the future. On this papers, the author would like to look for the problem on criminal negligence focusing on an ordinary person who shall be effected by science knowledge. And finally, the author may offer the repeal of slight and usual criminal negligence at least.

Industrial robots have been increasingly used for decades and the International Federation of Robotics predicts that 1.3 million more of such humanoids will be installed in factories across the globe between 2015 and 2018. While robots are deemed beneficial for industrial production, they pose a serious threat to our health and safety. Meanwhile, robots have killed many people and gravely injured numerous others in different countries. Policymakers around the world remain largely unmoved about resolving the uncertainty over the specificity of which persons should go on trial for such killings. This article examines the principles of common law governing manslaughter by criminal negligence with particular reference to Australia; however, it will generally apply to other common law countries as well. It finds that while it would be theoretically possible to identify the potential accused of workplace deaths caused by robots, we consider that the common law identification doctrine in practice will be a bar to successful prosecutions against corporate employers given the specific complexities associated with the usage of industrial robots. This article therefore submits a recommendation with justifications for dealing with this serious offence by enacting appropriate manslaughter law for the effective regulation of robots provoked fatalities.

Статтю присвячено дослідженню особливостей тлумачення протиправних діянь. Проаналізовано сутність злочинного діяння та злочинної бездіяльності. Визначено сутність адміністративного правопорушення. Обґрунтовано правильність та необхід- ність вживання словосполучень “вчинення злочину”, “вчинення правопорушення” замість “скоєння злочину”, “скоєння правопорушення”. The article is devoted to peculiarities of interpretation of wrongful acts. Examines the nature of the crime and the criminal inactivity. It defines the essence of the administrative offence. Reasonably correct and the need of the use of the phrase “committing a crime”, “offence” instead of “commit a crime”, “offense”. Статья посвящена исследованию особенностей толкования противоправных деяний. Проанализированы сущность преступного деяния и преступного бездействия. Определена сущность административного правонарушения. Обосно- ванно правильность и необходимость употребления словосочетаний “совершение преступления”, “совершение правонарушения” вместо “совершения преступления”, “совершение правонарушения”.

Medical profession differentiates itself from other professions, where apart from the knowledge and skill, touch of humanity is also required. Since the inclusion of medical profession under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act there has been a spurt in the number of cases against the doctors. Bolam's test is applied to assess medical negligence of doctor. Cases against the doctors can be brought in a civil or criminal court, and accordingly the negligence may be civil or criminal negligence. In deciding criminal negligence against doctors criminal intent need to be proved. The Medical Law and Ethical Code for medical professional in India are prescribed by Indian Medical Council, under the section 20-A of Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 and Amendment Act No. 24 of 1964.

Agnotology is the study of ignorance —how it is culturally created or condoned, and the purposes it serves in a society. Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, a historian of science and technology, coined the word from the Greek agnosis, “not knowing,” and -ology, a subject of study or a branch of knowledge. The term first appeared in popular usage in 2003 in an article in the New York Times. “[A] great deal of attention has been given to epistemology (the study of how we know) when ‘how or why we don’t know’ is often just as important,” say Proctor and Londa Schiebinger in their seminal book Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. These authors have entered a target-rich territory, because the ways in which ignorance is created (agnogenesis) in our society are infinite—through media neglect and obfuscation, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, myriad forms of cultural and political selectivity, inattention and forgetfulness, outright attempts to deceive and mislead (aka lying), and more. Proctor believes the study of ignorance has life-or-death consequences. This conviction stems from his role in the tobacco controversies in the waning years of the 20th century, in which he was a stern critic of the industry. “The tobacco industry is famous for having seen itself as a manufacturer of two different products, tobacco and doubt,” he asserts. The doubt refers to the tobacco companies' insistence that the science impugning tobacco was pie

Dans cet article, l’auteur se réfère aux tentatives d’application des nouvelles dispositions du Code criminel relativement à l’obligation de ceux qui dirigent l’exécution du travail par autrui, ainsi que les dispositions relatives à la négligence criminelle au sein des organisations. L’auteur relève dans un premier temps que ces nouvelles dispositions du Code criminel comportent un grand potentiel de fonder les accusations de négligence criminelle contre les organisations, ainsi que leurs cadres et agents en matière de santé et sécurité du travail. Cependant, l’auteur constate dans un deuxième temps que malgré l’existence de ces dispositions, la poursuite ne semble pas en profiter pour élargir le cercle des personnes susceptibles d’être poursuivies pour négligence criminelle en milieu de travail. L’auteur est d’avis que compte tenu du sentiment d’intolérance qui anime la société canadienne à l’égard des blessures ou de la mort des travailleurs à la suite de la négligence de leurs employeurs, il serait utile, lorsque les faits s’y prêtent, que la poursuite soit consciente de la nécessité de porter les accusations à l’encontre des organisations et des individus œuvrant pour leur compte afin d’aboutir à un niveau optimal de protection. L’auteur souligne toutefois que malgré la nécessité d’élargir le champ des personnes à poursuivre, les stigmates reliés à une condamnation en vertu du Code criminel exigent que la violation des obligations par celui qui dirige l’exécution du travail soit considérée comme constituant un écart marqué, ou un écart marqué et important (équivalant à une insouciance déréglée ou téméraire à l’égard de la santé ou de la sécurité d’autrui), de la norme de diligence raisonnable., In this paper, the author refers to attempts to apply the new provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the duty of those who have the authority to direct the performance of a work and the new provisions of the Criminal Code related to the criminal negligence liability of an organization. The author notes that the new provisions of the Criminal Code have the great potential to assert criminal negligence prosecutions not only against the organization but also against individuals such as senior officers, supervisors and other representatives. Despite this potential, the author however points out that Crown prosecutors are still reluctant to extend criminal charges to all persons involved in the supervision of the performance of the work. The author holds that given the Canadian society's intolerance to work-related death or injuries due to the lack of care of employers, to broaden the circle of those who may be charged could be a desirable option in order to ensure an optimal level of protection. However, the article stresses that social stigma associated with criminal conviction requires that, to be charged, anyone who owes a duty of care at workplace must depart markedly and substantially from the standard of care reaching the same level of gravity as the wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. If the accused is a legal person, his failure to take preventive measures must only constitute a marked departure from what a reasonably prudent person would have done in similar circumstances.

There has been a tendency for the criminal law to be used primarily as a tool of deterrence in corporate governance. Adopting the Singapore statutory framework as a case study, this paper explores whether we should criminalise directorial negligence in an effort to better secure corporate governance standards. Is it a good idea to brand negligent directors as criminals? If so, what should be the proper standard for criminal negligence? On what grounds, then, might we justify criminalising directorial negligence? This paper explores the merits of various possible rationales which might be mounted in support of criminalisation. It argues that directorial negligence ought not be criminalised, and that the best response to directorial negligence is instead a pecuniary penalty, which combines the punitive aspect of criminal law and the civil response, but which removes the condemnation and stigma associated with the criminal law.

The article is devoted to the actual problem of the subject aspect of the unlawful carrying out of the archaeological explorations, excavations, other earth-moving and submarine works at the object of the archaeological heritage (according to the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1,Article 298). During carrying out of the analysis of the subject aspect of the given crime such important characteristics of guilt as essence, extent of guilt, form and content of it have been revealed. The possibility of the commitment of a crime specified by the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1, Article 298 both with the special intent and with the criminal negligence has been given grounds, Рассмотрена субъективная сторона незаконного проведения археологических разведок, раскопок других земельных или подводных работ на объекте археологического наследия (за ч. 1 ст. 298 УК). Раскрыты такие важные характеристики вины, как сущность, степень вины, форма и содержание. Обоснована возможность совершения преступления, предусмотренного ч. 1 ст. 298 УК, как с прямым умыслом, так и с преступной небрежностью, Розглянуто суб’єктивну сторону незаконного проведення археологічних розвідок, розкопок, інших земляних чи підводних робіт на об’єкті археологічної спадщини (за ч. 1 ст. 298 КК). Розкрито такі важливі характеристики вини, як її сутність, ступінь, форма і зміст. Обґрунтовано можливість вчинення злочину, передбаченого ч. 1 ст. 298 КК як з прямим умислом, так і зі злочинною недбалістю