Unlike UAM, GNM can be an omission and doesn’t need to be an act. D doesn’t
have to be engaged in a criminal act when they kill someone (Holloway). The
case of Adomako sets out the 4 rules: D owed V a duty of care, D breached the
duty of care, D’s breach caused death, D’s conduct was so bad that the jury
considered it criminal.
D must owe V a duty of care - Adomako shows doctor and patient, Singh
shows landlord to tenant, Holloway shows workers duty to customer, Wacker
shows driver and passenger, Litchfield/Pitwood shows a contract duty to act.
Stone and Dobinson says that there is a voluntary assumption of care. Evans is
when a dangerous situation was created which risked V - suggests a prior
relationship may be a necessary factor, control of the environment and some
prior involvement. Gibbins and Proctor is parent to child. If there is no
existing precedent, apply Donoghue v Stevenson - “a duty is owed to people
so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in
contemplation as being so affected.”
Wacker - the fact that D and V are both parties to an illegal act is not relevant.
Breached duty of care - D breached the duty of care by act or omission and the
breach had a risk of death (Misra). The test for a breach is a reasonable man
test: D has breached their duty if their act/omission falls below the standard
of the reasonably competent person. Misra - Court of appeal confirmed there
must be a risk of death through D’s breach.
D’s breach caused death - causation rules and cases apply.
D’s conduct was so bad… - Andrews; a very high degree of negligence.
Bateman; showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to
amount to a crime.
Finish off writing context
have to be engaged in a criminal act when they kill someone (Holloway). The
case of Adomako sets out the 4 rules: D owed V a duty of care, D breached the
duty of care, D’s breach caused death, D’s conduct was so bad that the jury
considered it criminal.
D must owe V a duty of care - Adomako shows doctor and patient, Singh
shows landlord to tenant, Holloway shows workers duty to customer, Wacker
shows driver and passenger, Litchfield/Pitwood shows a contract duty to act.
Stone and Dobinson says that there is a voluntary assumption of care. Evans is
when a dangerous situation was created which risked V - suggests a prior
relationship may be a necessary factor, control of the environment and some
prior involvement. Gibbins and Proctor is parent to child. If there is no
existing precedent, apply Donoghue v Stevenson - “a duty is owed to people
so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in
contemplation as being so affected.”
Wacker - the fact that D and V are both parties to an illegal act is not relevant.
Breached duty of care - D breached the duty of care by act or omission and the
breach had a risk of death (Misra). The test for a breach is a reasonable man
test: D has breached their duty if their act/omission falls below the standard
of the reasonably competent person. Misra - Court of appeal confirmed there
must be a risk of death through D’s breach.
D’s breach caused death - causation rules and cases apply.
D’s conduct was so bad… - Andrews; a very high degree of negligence.
Bateman; showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to
amount to a crime.
Finish off writing context
