Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Depends on the systematicity and avoidability of the accidents, I would say. Negligence is different from manslaughter, but it seems like a spectrum.


sort by: page size:

Not at all. Manslaughter is frequently a crime of negligence. Calling it an accident doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility.

The difference is the one between negligence and manslaughter. If your negligent actions result in something else down the line, you are still, in part, responsible.

There can, and usually is, more than 100% blame to go around.


It all depends on if one can prove negligence.

I mean, in cases where they are criminally negligent, they are already responsible for accidents.

The tricky part is figuring out what constitutes negligence.


Negligence that results in death is manslaughter by gross negligence.

The Texas version requires recklessness, and I think that's met here.


Negligence is not murder but people still die.

Are involuntary manslaughter cases not usually predicated on some sort of negligence or other criminal activity on the part of the manslaughter? I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being punished for being the person in the wrong place when someone else decides to commit suicide by train or vehicle, for example.

If we take the comparison down a step (and into what I think is maybe a more comparable situation), I routinely see warnings in parking lots that they are not liable for stolen property or damage and imagine those are generally probably pretty accurate outside of, again, some negligence on the side of the business.


I think if you have a predictable accident, that's called negligence, and we have courts to deal with that.

I agree murder wouldn’t fit here (unfortunately), and I was speaking more in the context of negligence - there were definitively intentional things done that affected safety, with intent to either violate it or withhold information about it to third parties. Manslaughter definitively, but 'involuntary' I feel doesn't apply (nor does "voluntary manslaughter" because there wasn't that specific intent), which is why I'm going with "criminal negligence".

Specifically what I’m getting at is that they’d have a hard time claiming that they reasonably didn’t think any harm could happen given the context of what was said and done/not done.


Of course, I just don't think they should be called "accidents." When a person is willfully negligent the damage they cause is no accident.

That's an interesting point. Is there any case law on negligence versus malice?

It also depends if it's a tort or criminal.

Typically in the USA the standard isn't negligence but malice?


That depends on your legal jurisdiction and its ideas about liability.

That one sounds fairly similar to manslaughter, no?

My understanding is that logically there's that basic framework of required specific intent, then there are a few crimes that allow prosecuting for negligence, then very few crimes with strict liability.

I'm originally not from US so I'm probably still getting used that the latter two categories are quite common in US law (and that strict liability is even possible).


The line between mistake and negligence is a lot blurrier than the line between killed and didn’t kill.

To be frank, it's difficult to believe 'gross negligence manslaughter' is the default term you normally use in lieu of other choices. Or that you were unable to think of other terms.

I would say this is negligence, but perhaps not extremely so.
next

Legal | privacy