Causing Death by Dangerous Driving?
Discussion
From this news article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
“ The car driver, a 21-year-old man, was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and driving under the influence of drink and/or drugs.”
It doesn’t say he was broken down. If he came to a stop/crashed in a dangerous place because of the drink/drugs, it seems fair to me.
It doesn’t say he was broken down. If he came to a stop/crashed in a dangerous place because of the drink/drugs, it seems fair to me.
I don't know anything about the circumstances of this matter.
In Jenkins (2012), in which a badly parked vehicle was a cause of a fatal accident at a location where visibility was an issue, the Court of Appeal held that (for CDCD):
"it is no part of the statutory definition that the driving must be coterminous with the impact resulting in the death. The offence is "causing death ... by driving". It is not "causing death while driving."
Subsequent CDDD example:
Farmer convicted of CDDD despite not being in his tractor:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
In Jenkins (2012), in which a badly parked vehicle was a cause of a fatal accident at a location where visibility was an issue, the Court of Appeal held that (for CDCD):
"it is no part of the statutory definition that the driving must be coterminous with the impact resulting in the death. The offence is "causing death ... by driving". It is not "causing death while driving."
Subsequent CDDD example:
Farmer convicted of CDDD despite not being in his tractor:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-or...
280E said:
From this news article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
My guess is that the Prosecution will argue that if the driver of the Fiesta weren't over the limit on drink and/or drugs then they wouldn't have crashed.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
Had they not crashed then HGV driver #1 wouldn't have stopped.
If HGV driver #1 not stopped then HGV driver #2 couldn't have driven into HGV #1 and died as a result.
Therefore, the cause of HGV Driver #2 death is the Fiesta driver being over the limit on drink and/or drugs.
And of course, being dead, the driver of the HGV who failed to avoid the obstruction (and there may be some reason for that- I don't know) cannot also be charged with Dangerous Driving or anything else. If he had survived and someone else had died (such as the other truck driver), so that he could also be charged, it would not look so odd.
Which is not to say he would have been charged with anything - perhaps he did no wrong.
Which is not to say he would have been charged with anything - perhaps he did no wrong.
That is, as I suspect you know, a silly point. To establish a liability civil or criminal the law looks at proximate causes of events and does not operate on the level of butterfly wings causing a hurricane.
As a philosopher might put it, the issue is "causa causans", which is crudely translated as causative cause but better expressed as immediate or proximate cause, and "causa sine qua non", or cause without which nothing, which may be expresssed as originating or ultimate cause.
The chain of causation is broken when some new action sufficiently distinct from event A intervenes between event A and consequence B. Determining causation is a matter of fact and degree. In your example, there are so many events and decisions between the original incident and the juror's car crash that event A cannot be for legal purposes the cause of consequence B.
As a philosopher might put it, the issue is "causa causans", which is crudely translated as causative cause but better expressed as immediate or proximate cause, and "causa sine qua non", or cause without which nothing, which may be expresssed as originating or ultimate cause.
The chain of causation is broken when some new action sufficiently distinct from event A intervenes between event A and consequence B. Determining causation is a matter of fact and degree. In your example, there are so many events and decisions between the original incident and the juror's car crash that event A cannot be for legal purposes the cause of consequence B.
It could be argued that had the 'good Samaritan' HGV driver not stopped, then the deceased HGV driver would have stood a better chance ploughing into the car - rather than into the back of the truck. Is the 'good Samaritan' culpable?
Also, what happened to the principle of "always being able to stop safely, within the distance you can see to be clear"?
Also, what happened to the principle of "always being able to stop safely, within the distance you can see to be clear"?
280E said:
It could be argued that had the 'good Samaritan' HGV driver not stopped, then the deceased HGV driver would have stood a better chance ploughing into the car - rather than into the back of the truck. Is the 'good Samaritan' culpable?
Also, what happened to the principle of "always being able to stop safely, within the distance you can see to be clear"?
My understanding is that the truck driver's possible partial responsibility for the accident (in civil not criminal terms) doers not mitigate the car drivers dangerous driving. Also, what happened to the principle of "always being able to stop safely, within the distance you can see to be clear"?
The law is in general tender towards the ethical and less so towards the selfish. People attempting rescues get some slack. Thus, for example, in the field of damages for nervous shock, the rescuer who is traumatised by the scene of the rail crash wins, but the gawper who stops to stare at an accident and doesn't help loses.
280E said:
From this news article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
Car was not broken down. looks like a drunk driver lossing control.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestersh...
The driver of the broken-down car appears to have been charged with CDbDD. Does that make sense?
Quote: Police were called to reports a car had lost control on the northbound carriageway between junctions 9 and 11: End quote.
280E said:
It could be argued that had the 'good Samaritan' HGV driver not stopped, then the deceased HGV driver would have stood a better chance ploughing into the car - rather than into the back of the truck. Is the 'good Samaritan' culpable?
For the good samaritan to be culpable in the sense of being guilty of death by dangerous driving, two things would have to be true:(1) His driving would have to have fallen far below the standard expected of a competent, careful driver and
(2) That bad driving would have had to be a cause of the death (not the only cause, or even the biggest cause, just a significant cause)
Does stopping to assist another driver in a dangerous situation fall far below what is expected of a competent, careful driver? If not, the question of whether (2) is true is neither here nor there.
280E said:
Also, what happened to the principle of "always being able to stop safely, within the distance you can see to be clear"?
Nothing. However the principle of "Don't drive while plastered, crash your car and leave it in a dangerous position" is also a good one. As with most accidents, there is more than one cause involved, and more than one person can be culpable.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff