Baby Crushed to Death at Airport

ElliottJames · 20 Sep 2013 at 23:46

I will use basic law as people just seem to be clueless.

Did the defendants actions cause the victims suffering if yes proceed.

Was the chain of causation broken, NO

Therefore the mother should be criminally liable for the death of her child

Nitefly · 20 Sep 2013 at 23:49

ElliottJames said:
I will use basic law as people just seem to be clueless.

Did the defendants actions cause the victims suffering if yes proceed.

Was the chain of causation broken, NO

Therefore the mother should be criminally liable for the death of her child

Regardless of what you might know (or think you might know), there really isn't any need to be so patronising.

Jokester · 20 Sep 2013 at 23:50

Nitefly said:
There's no obligation to have any precautions whatsoever when serving a cup of coffee. At least in the UK.

Companies have legal obligation not to put their customers and the wider public at unreasonable risk of injury under HSE law, it's not particularly specific in most cases.

Nitefly said:
Ultimately, it's heavy plant at an airport. I think your point is arguable, but not easily. Actually I take that back, I'll reluctantly settle.

As per my previous point, and specifically because it is as you point out heavy plant that the public have seemingly un-supervised access to.

I'm not sure what Spanish HSE law is like so it could be completely different over there but being another EU country it would likely be the same.

ElliottJames · 20 Sep 2013 at 23:52

Nitefly said:
Regardless of what you might know (or think you might know), there really isn't any need to be so patronising.

Well it seems the law needs to be dumbed down for certain people, of course we could go into detail, but I guess not many would keep up.

Nitefly · 20 Sep 2013 at 23:52

Jokester said:
Companies have legal obligation not to put their customers and the wider public at unreasonable risk of injury under HSE law, it's not particularly specific in most cases.

As per my previous point, and specifically because it is as you point out heavy plant that the public have seemingly un-supervised access to.

I'm not sure what Spanish HSE law is like so it could be completely different over there but being another EU country it would likely be the same.

Offer withdrawn, I'm fighting you all the way on principle

Jokester · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:12

Nitefly said:
Offer withdrawn, I'm fighting you all the way on principle

Heh no worries

It irks me slightly when people are so keen to blame the mother (and worse, suggest she should be locked up) when at least on the face of it she appeared to be doing something entirely reasonable - un-stick a pushchair from a luggage belt. Could it have been reasonably forseen by her that the belt would automatically start making her drop her child? I'm not sure as she wouldn't have known presumably how the belt worked. But could you foresee serious injury/death to a small child if one got trapped in the big gap between the belts, I would think so and if there were signs up saying there was a risk of injury then the airport must have thought so as well.

ElliottJames said:
Just stop, stop stop. Your trying to dictate the law all wrong. For a serious s18 crime OAPA, murder or manslaughter one does not have to foresee the consequences. The mom had a duty of care and breached that duty. The airport also had a duty of care and compared to the reasonable man they will not be prosecuted. Stop dictating law or trying to justify your reasons as they are invalid in the English law.

Her behaviour wasn't reckless, she would never ever face prosecution in this country.

Nitefly · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:19

Jokester said:
Heh no worries

It irks me slightly when people are so keen to blame the mother (and worse, suggest she should be locked up) when at least on the face of it she appeared to be doing something entirely reasonable - un-stick a pushchair from a luggage belt. Could it have been reasonably forseen by her that the belt would automatically start making her drop her child? I'm not sure as she wouldn't have known presumably how the belt worked. But could you foresee serious injury/death to a small child if one got trapped in the big gap between the belts, I would think so and if there were signs up saying there was a risk of injury then the airport must have thought so as well.

In short, if it was in the UK, I couldn't foresee any sort of prosecution against the mother (let alone successful), but I'd seriously doubt any civil claim could be successfully pursued against the airport either. Edit - I think you could construct a case (an argument) of recklessness, but it just wouldn't happen.

Anyway, sad story.

ElliottJames · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:20

Jokester said:
Heh no worries

It irks me slightly when people are so keen to blame the mother (and worse, suggest she should be locked up) when at least on the face of it she appeared to be doing something entirely reasonable - un-stick a pushchair from a luggage belt. Could it have been reasonably forseen by her that the belt would automatically start making her drop her child? I'm not sure as she wouldn't have known presumably how the belt worked. But could you foresee serious injury/death to a small child if one got trapped in the big gap between the belts, I would think so and if there were signs up saying there was a risk of injury then the airport must have thought so as well.

Her behaviour wasn't reckless, she would never ever face prosecution in this country.

Again all wrong. Does not have to foresee the risk. Using precedent and case law, Cunningham, it's defined as taking an unjustified risk. Therefore she should be prosecuted and charged with gross negligence manslaughter assuming the facts are accurate of course

Jokester · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:23

ElliottJames said:
Again all wrong. Does not have to foresee the risk. Using precedent and case law, Cunningham, it's defined as taking an unjustified risk. Therefore she should be prosecuted and charged with gross negligence manslaughter assuming the facts are accurate of course

What ever version your going by isn't what happened.

ElliottJames · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:25

Jokester said:
What ever version your going by isn't what happened.

I am going by the news article presented to all of us and if that's the facts then she should/will be prosecuted.

Orch · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:27

ElliottJames said:
I will use basic law as people just seem to be clueless.

Did the defendants actions cause the victims suffering if yes proceed.

Was the chain of causation broken, NO

Therefore the mother should be criminally liable for the death of her child

Easy Ally McBeal

Nitefly · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:28

ElliottJames said:
Again all wrong. Does not have to foresee the risk. Using precedent and case law, Cunningham, it's defined as taking an unjustified risk. Therefore she should be prosecuted and charged with gross negligence manslaughter assuming the facts are accurate of course

I'd try to think of this 'purposefuly'.

HAz · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:30

What an idiot thing to do.

Jokester · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:33

ElliottJames said:
I am going by the news article presented to all of us and if that's the facts then she should/will be prosecuted.

She won't be. They would never be able to prove that it was reasonably foreseable outcome to the average person. Not in a million years!

Nitefly · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:35

Jokester said:
She won't be. They would never be able to prove that it was reasonably foreseable outcome to the average person. Not in a million years!

Bear in mind it's the risk that must be foreseeable.

ElliottJames · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:39

Jokester said:
She won't be. They would never be able to prove that it was reasonably foreseable outcome to the average person. Not in a million years!

No no, I didn't explain properly.

In tort if she's to blame the airport for negligence then it the airport will be compared to the reasonable persons. In her case - they will just need to establish and prove causation. She does not have to foresee the risk specifically but if there's a risk and she takes that chance - she is liable for the outcome. She doesn't have to foresee how the risk could have happened, how the injuries could have happened or death could have happened, there just has to be a risk of harm, doesn't matter how it happened, even if it was in the most impossible way ever. As long as there is a risk, then that's that.

ElliottJames · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:40

Nitefly said:
Bear in mind it's the risk that must be foreseeable.

Exactly, the risk not the outcome. - Doesn't matter how the outcome happened, there was a risk.

Jokester · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:47

ElliottJames said:
No no, I didn't explain properly.

In tort if she's to blame the airport for negligence then it the airport will be compared to the reasonable persons. In her case - they will just need to establish and prove causation. She does not have to foresee the risk specifically but if there's a risk and she takes that chance - she is liable for the outcome. She doesn't have to foresee how the risk could have happened, how the injuries could have happened or death could have happened, there just has to be a risk of harm, doesn't matter how it happened, even if it was in the most impossible way ever. As long as there is a risk, then that's that.

ElliottJames said:
Exactly, the risk not the outcome. - Doesn't matter how the outcome happened, there was a risk.

And that is why it shifts to the airport. Warning signs demonstrate they were explicitly aware of that risk of injury, but were allowing access to the equipment to people who weren't necessarily obvious to the risk.

ElliottJames · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:52

Jokester said:
And that is why it shifts to the airport. Warning signs demonstrate they were explicitly aware of that risk of injury, but were allowing access to the equipment to people who weren't necessarily obvious to the risk.

From the facts of the news article - the airport I doubt can be criminally trialed. Sued at the most by the mother in that case Tort we are talking about and that's a whole different story but on the topic of who's criminal liable, there was no break in the chain of causation from the mothers actions to the death. That's like implying if a child runs out into the road and a car speeding hits it and kills it, the council or people responsible for the road should be liable as they haven't got fences blocking children accessing the road. If anyone is to be trialed it will be the mother.

Nitefly · 21 Sep 2013 at 00:55

Jokester said:
And that is why it shifts to the airport. Warning signs demonstrate they were explicitly aware of that risk of injury, but were allowing access to the equipment to people who weren't necessarily obvious to the risk.

I think the correct way to view it is:

1) A reasonable person could probably foresee the risk in placing a young child on heavy machinery;

2) The airport (at least partially) satisfied its duty of care by placing such signs that the plant was dangerous; and

3) It's extremely unlikely a prosecution against the mother would be made in such tragic circumstances.