Search

In Melbourne, 1880, fourteen-year-old Charlotte Duffy died of “hip disease” complicated by extreme neglect. Her parents were charged with criminal negligence. Matthew and Annie Duffy were both convicted, but Matthew Duffy's conviction was overturned on appeal, the court ruling that “in point of law” a father was not required to take any part in the day-to-day care of his children. This article uses the death of Charlotte Duffy as a focal point for an analysis of the gendered category of father in late-nineteenth-century Victoria, arguing that despite the clear delineation of male and female parenting in official discourse, the increasing strength of the ideal of conjugal masculinity was expanding the definition of fatherhood within the middle class. By the end of the nineteenth century, fatherhood implied a more intimate involvement with children than before: a new conception that worked to both extend and restrict the privileges of masculinity.

Cases dealing with criminal medical negligence in South Africa are relatively rare, and rarer still are those that are reported. In fact, the last reported case dealing explicitly with criminal negligence (of specifically medical specialists) resulting in the death of a patient is S v Kramer 1987 1 SA 887 (W). It is for this reason that the reported case under discussion, more than two decades after the Kramer decision, is of interest. Of particular interest would be a principled assessment of the judgment, in context of criminal medical negligence with reference to the crime of culpable homicide. In this case, it is specifically some of the elements of criminal liability, namely the actus reus (in the form of an omission), causation and fault that attract academic attention, albeit by way of a deconstruction of the judgment.

Despite repeated warnings, newspaper reports of fatalities and public health and safety campaigns; accidental deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning continue to occur. They can be from accident, ignorance, criminal negligence or foolhardiness; what ever the reason such deaths are tragic and often avoidable. The case presented here was some of these. The physiology and biochemistry is discussed as well as other unusual causes of death by suffocation. This includes the use and abuse of helium from party balloons and nitrous oxide from the misuse of whipped cream dispensers provoking near suffocation and the occasional deaths, though fortunately rare. The request to attend a "sudden death", al though the death may often be many days, if not weeks old, is never pleasant. However, it is always instructive and often the most interesting, challenging and satisfying of all the work that a forensic medical examiner (FME) does. The approach should be methodical and with care and attention to detail. An awareness of the causes of injuries, forms and types of self-harm, presence of knives, drugs or weapons, and the changes after death are all part of the consideration that the experienced FME can bring to bear in assisting the police. Initial assessment if this is a natural death, a death by misadventure, a death by suicide or perhaps murder is all part of the work of the FME. Paramedics are now increasingly allowed to pronounce life extinct without any of the experience or forensic training of the FME and, in the case presented here, it is doubtful if the former would have spotted what had actually caused this death.

A conviction for manslaughter is a professional disaster for the doctor, likely to herald the end of his career in medicine, and a possible prison sentence. A finding of civil negligence is bad enough; a verdict of criminal negligence is truly tragic. There are not many prosecutions for doctor manslaughter, because jurors respect doctors, recognise the inherent risks in medicine and are reluctant to convict. However, prosecutions are now more common than before, especially since 1990 or thereabouts (‘‘Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice 1795–2005, a literature review’’, RE Ferner and SE McDowell, J R Soc Med 2006 June 99(6) 309–314 – mistakes, slips and violations). A fatal medical mishap may arise in almost any situation, though some areas of practice are more vulnerable than others, such as obstetrics and gynaecology and anaesthetics. The examples from practice are legion: Wrong diagnosis. Failure to refer the patient to hospital. Wrong drug prescribed or administered. Not listening to the patient, or to members of the medical team. Delay in attending to the patient. Failure to check symptoms. Failure to obtain a scan, or quickly enough, or misreading the scan. A one-off lamentable incident. A series of failures, systematic lapses. The standard to be applied is the expected or accepted practice normally exercised by a reasonably competent doctor, following the guidance from the GMC and the Royal Colleges, and the law set down by the judges. This standard is inherently and inevitably somewhat vague and uncertain, as so much depends upon the particular factual circumstances of each case. A mistake or error of judgment will not suffice. The test is gross negligence, more than ordinary negligence, beyond mere inadvertence. The doctor was reckless in his attention to the patient. His conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, very bad. Jurors feel shocked, even outraged. R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171. A locum anaesthetist was involved in a detached retina operation. He failed to notice for over 4min that a tube had become dislodged, thus depriving the patient of oxygen. The chest was not moving, the patient was turning blue and the dials on the machine stopped. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died. Even when the machine alarm went off, it did not occur to the doctor that there had been a disconnection. The doctor was in breach of his duty of care, namely to exercise reasonable professional skill. Manslaughter. R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, 181–182. Two junior doctors were responsible for the postoperative care of the patient recovering from knee surgery. The patient began to show classic symptoms of serious illness, namely temperature, pulse and blood pressure, and the nurses expressed concern, yet the doctors did nothing and did not refer to the consultant. The patient developed infection of the wound, which went undiagnosed, and died from toxic shock syndrome. Manslaughter. R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, [2004] EWCA Crim 2375. After a routine knee operation which went off satisfactorily, the patient was transferred to a consultant surgeon because he complained of abdominal pain. A perforated bowel, a potentially life-threatening condition, was suspected, but the doctor, a colorectal surgeon, ignored the patient for 24 h, did not prescribe antibiotics and delayed in obtaining and examining a scan. The risks grew over time, and the patient died. By multiple failures, the doctor had not measured up to accepted and expected standards. Manslaughter. R v Sellu, Central Criminal Court, 5 November 2013. The patient had fluid overload and low blood pressure and did not respond to antibiotics. The doctor failed to investigate abdominal pain, failed to detect a blocked urethra, failed to ascertain renal failure from tests, failed to detect sepsis and failed to drain the infection. He failed to care properly for the patient. The patient died from pulmonary oedema. The records were poor, and, worse, the doctor tampered with them. Manslaughter. R v Garg [2012] EWCA Crim 2520, (2013) 2 Cr App R (S) 30.

Bhopal, the capital of the state of Madhya Pradesh in India, is known throughout the world for the huge disaster, affecting millions of people, that occurred at a Union Carbide pesticide plant on the night of December 3, 1984. The union Carbide Corporation technical team reports that a large volume of water was introduced into the Methyl Isocyanate tank and triggered a reaction (MIC) that resulted in the gas release (Lapierre & Moro, 1997).

Introduction The substantive definitions of crimes (on which, see Chapters 10–13) provide only a part of the picture of criminal liability. The general principles of liability apply across the various different offences and provide for the doctrines by which a person may commit, participate, or otherwise be found responsible for those crimes. They include forms of liability such as aiding and abetting, which are familiar to all domestic criminal lawyers, as well as principles like command responsibility, which are specific to international criminal law. It is important to note at the outset that the various forms of liability not only have different conduct elements, but also different mental elements, and the extent to which principles of accomplice liability have been used in some cases to avoid high mens rea requirements for primary commission of international crimes has been controversial. Unlike in domestic law, where the traditional image of a criminal is the primary perpetrator, such as the person who pulls the trigger, in international criminal law, the paradigmatic offender is the person who orders, masterminds, or takes part in a plan at a high level. As a result, principles of secondary liability play a comparatively large role in international criminal law. This chapter will discuss the principles of liability from two points of view, the ambit of liability recognized in customary and conventional international law, alongside the appropriateness of those principles from the point of view of foundational principles of criminal law, such as the requirements of personal responsibility and fair labelling.

The word “negligence” is always damaging to the reputation of doctors, related to some damage to the patient and a challenge before the judges. In recent years, sudden spurt in the cases of “Criminal negligence” and decision of the Supreme Court raises a fresh debate. This paper deals with current scenario of “Criminal Negligence”, applicability of Section 304 & 304-A IPC in cases of death of patient during treatment, remedial measures available to a doctor facing the charge of ‘Criminal Negligence’ and a brief discussion of important cases related to the issue, including recent case. Negligence is a term of art, but has distinct meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in the law of master and servant. In criminal law, there are series of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is not material; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operation of patient without consent is an example of negligence (Statutory Damage) even without actual apparent damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’. As defined by Baron Alderson negligence means: “Omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those consideration which regulate conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable man would not do”. Same definition is quoted in many decisions of the court. ‘Criminal Negligence’ is an offence against the State while ‘Civil Negligence’ is an offence against the individual act, which leads to injury i.e. physical injury, hurt- Section 319, grievous hurt- Section 320 Indian Penal Code (IPC). Loss of property (financial loss) due to some negligent act is always a civil negligence. The decision of the Supreme Court delivered on last years raises a fresh debate on the issue of ‘Criminal Negligence by the Doctors’. In this case the Supreme Court relied on various decisions of the House of Lords.

This article is a study of the response of the legal/regulatory system to all 129 work-related fatalities which occurred in NSW in 1984. Previous research on the response of the legal system has utilised the case study approach. This is the first time to our knowledge that the response to all work-related fatalities in one jurisdiction has been investigated. The pattern which emerges is one of great variation in the way coroners deal with such cases and fragmentation in the response of the various regulatory agencies with an interest in occupational health and safety. Indeed, more than half the fatalities under consideration were not investigated by any such agency. In not one case did the coroner suggest that there was evidence of criminal negligence by anyone concerned. The 129 cases resulted in 13 prosecutions of companies for violations of safety regulations. The study also examines the views of coroners and inspectors on factors which contributed to the fatalities.

□ BackgroundPhysicians frequently have to face an investigation of their work from a judicial point of view. Due to these proceedings the number of cases when they are reproached with malpractice is increasing.□ Case ReportWe report the rare case of a 76-year-old female patient who fell from a 68 cm high couch after a sedative was applied during gastroscopical examination. She died 24 hours after the incident. Forensic necropsy revealed a delayed aortic rupture as the cause of death. The preliminary proceedings against the physician involved for culpable homicide by criminal negligence were suspended after he paid a fine. The possible legal consequences under German law for physicians involved in such cases are discussed as well as strategies to avoid them.□ ConclusionPhysicians who are under investigation for malpractice should act carefully. They are advised to seek professional help at an early stage of preliminary proceedings. A public trial should be avoided if possible.

Objective: TO review the practice and legal principles of negligence law. Case Summary: An illustrative, fictional case is presented, based in part on facts gleaned from actual case law. A respected pharmacist, faced with the financial loss of his business, decided to engage in 2 creative but unethical schemes to increase his profit margin. In doing so, he violated federal Medicare law and placed a number of the patients who used his services at significant risk for medical complications. Discussion: Negligence law has evolved over the past 30 years in a manner that significantly increases the liability of the practicing pharmacist for both ordinary negligence actions and criminal negligence actions. In addition, the past decade has seen the expansion of Medicare Fraud and Abuse law such that it now represents an increasingly high risk area for every medical service provider, including the pharmacist. Conclusions: Professional practice in the US is highly regulated, governed by both case law and statutory law. Every practicing pharmacist should be aware of the law that governs his or her behavior to avoid both civil and criminal liability.

The Doctor-Patient Relationship (DPR) is a complex concept in the medical sociology in which patients voluntarily approach a doctor and thus become a part of a contract in which they tends to abide with the doctor’s guidance. Globally, the DPR has changed drastically over the years owing to the commercialization and privatization of the health sector. Furthermore, the dynamics of the DPR has shown a significant change because of the formulation of consumer protection acts; clauses for professional misconduct and criminal negligence; establishment of patient forums and organizations; massive expansion of the mass media sector leading to increase in health awareness among people; and changes in the status of the doctors. Realizing the importance of DPR in the final outcome and quality of life of the patient, multiple measures have been suggested to make a correct diagnosis and enhance healing. To conclude, good DPR is the crucial determinant for a better clinical outcome and satisfaction with the patients, irrespective of the socio-cultural determinants.

This article examines Bill C-45 and its possible impact on the Canadian Petroleum Industry. Bill C- 45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, establishes a new occupational health and safety (OHS) duty in the Criminal Code. If the duty is breached, either by individuals or organizations, it may result in a criminal charge of occupational health and safety criminal negligence. Bill C-45 also changes the means by which organizations, including corporations, are held liable for offences under the Criminal Code. The "identification theory" of corporate criminal liability has now been replaced by two provisions in the Criminal Code to address the criminal liability of organizations. The first provision, which deals with offences such as the new OHS criminal negligence offence, requires proof of negligence. The second deals with a more classic objective fault element or mens rea. The Canadian petroleum industry, especially in Alberta, has often relied upon outsourcing, contract provisions and structuring of relationships to minimize OHS legal liability under applicable OHS statutes. However, there is no legal basis to contract out of the Criminal Code. It is more important than ever to emphasize proper contract language, indemnity provisions and OHS management systems.

Excessive sleepiness is associated with motor vehicle accidents and is responsible for enormous social and financial loss. The specific legal obligations for an individual with a sleep disorder, their employer and those health care practitioners associated with that individual are reviewed. Although there are related implications within the criminal law and in particular criminal negligence, the arguments developed in this paper will be largely confined to the context of the civil liability. The legal concepts of foreseeability and proximity are discussed in the context of sleep-related accidents. The reasoning of a recent Australian High Court judgement is discussed in view of the differences in legal and medical opinion on the extent of foreseeability of accidents as a result of sleepiness. Many countries have legislation designed to protect employees from injury at work and to protect the general public from injury. What is not clear is the extent to which an employer will be required to accept liability for an employee's sleepiness and the duty to monitor the health of their employees. Factors which influence this liability include: the extent to which the implications of the condition is known and understood generally; the extent to which the condition is suspected or identified in an individual employee; the extent of a proper screening and treatment program and the way in which risk management programs have been implemented. Although the issue of sleepiness and civil liability is examined from an Australian legal context, the principles have direct relevance to other legal systems. The authors highlight the degree of uncertainty provided by the common law and statutory provisions, and that decisions rest on the balance of public interests, which mean that many of the current dilemmas facing practitioners may only be solved in the courts.

Smoking is a paediatric disease that usually takes decades to claim its victims. Yet the promotion of cigarettes—particularly American cigarettes in Poland—can kill young people instantly. In the first six months of 1997, five sales representatives at Philip Morris Poland were killed and another critically injured in three separate accidents involving company cars. At first glance it seems that one of the world’s most aggressive marketing programmes and some of the world’s deadliest roads are simply a combination destined to produce repeated tragedies. But a closer look reveals that, in the third and most horrific accident, the company’s gross and perhaps criminal negligence greatly increased the risk to its young employees. This Philip Morris vehicle, photographed on a company lot near Warsaw in February 1998, may be an example of the wreckage (and carnage) resulting from high-speed tobacco marketing in Poland. (Photo credit: P Wrabec.) Let’s say you’re a marketing manager at the world’s leading transnational tobacco company, and you’re working in one of those backward little post-communist countries—for example, Poland. Your flagship brand, despite your best efforts and relentless promotional campaigning, just isn’t as popular among Polish youth as you would like it to be. What do you do? Even more promotions? Sure, the gadgets, contests, and cigarette giveaways must continue. (Never mind that you promised four years ago back home in the United States to stop handing out free samples. Poland ain’t home, is it? Home is now a tobacco war zone. Poland, God love it, is one of the new Promised Lands.) But these promotional tools are standard. You need something more, something with a little zip, a little flare. Something to make heads turn—especially heads that are young and impressionable. Got it! You know those trick matches that you …

The simple fact is that few conscious actions are taken without a specific purpose. If one raises a hand it may be in greeting, in salute, or perhaps to shade one’s eyes. Almost always there is a purpose. To go to war — a war in which countless lives will be lost and on which may depend the future of a nation, or the freedom and lifestyle of its people — without a clear and attainable objective, would be criminal negligence or sheer folly. In either case it is unforgivable. And yet, the world has witnessed such political ineptitude or irresponsibility on more than one occasion. One might judge the entry of America and its allies into the Vietnam conflict to be such a case. Although, to be fair, the domino theory was in vogue in the early 1960s and the western strategy was the containment of communist expansion. The fundamental error was the failure of the president, the commander in chief, to articulate a clear, unambiguous and attainable political aim/objective. Instead, what the president declared to the world at large was that the United States was not seeking to win the war but simply to preserve the independence of South Vietnam. The objective was at best unclear and, with the operating constraints imposed by politicians ignorant of the principles of war, unattainable. Unattainable without a continuing bleeding of the nations involved. The world’s most powerful nation adopted a defensive posture. Perhaps it would have been useful to reflect on the writing of Sun Tzu: ‘Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.’ There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.’1

THE BHOPAL DISTRICT COURT of India has ruled that seven former officials of Union Carbide India are guilty of criminal negligence in the chemical leak disaster that killed thousands in December 1984. The court sentenced them to two years in prison, the maximum allowed. The ruling, by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan P. Tiwari, concerns a criminal case filed in 1987 by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation, the country’s equivalent of the FBI. In the course of the 23-year case, India failed to secure the extradition of Warren Anderson, the now-89-year-old former chairman of Union Carbide, who is described as an “absconder” from justice in the ruling. Over the years, the hot-button case has passed from one judge to another more than a dozen times. Those sentenced include Union Carbide India’s then-chairman, Keshub Mahindra, and six other former senior officials. They all posted bail and have 30 days to file an appeal. In his 95-page ruling, ...