Just had a random thought

[Gaygle]

If you slashed someone's arm and they died from an infection four weeks down the line, it's still murder as it could be reasonably expected that they could die from their injuries.

Ok, i know this is getting to the downright obscure now (this is what an office job does to you) - but what would happen if they went to hospital for treatment and died as a result of negligence at the hospital? Could it be argued that the person wouldn't have had been in hospital if you hadn't put them there?

 

[Haggisman]

If you stab someone and they refuse treatment for religious reasons etc. it's murder.

Now... this is an interesting one. Lets take christianity as an example. Now I'm pretty sure that suicide is frowned upon by the bible... surely the act of preventing something which will save your life is tantamount to suicide?

 

[Participant]

Ok, i know this is getting to the downright obscure now (this is what an office job does to you) - but what would happen if they went to hospital for treatment and died as a result of negligence at the hospital? Could it be argued that the person wouldn't have had been in hospital if you hadn't put them there?

If it could be proven that the sole reason for their demise, was that someone injected a patient with aids instead of morphine or something , then that probably wouldn't be murder in my opinion, though I'm very much not legally qualified and am totally guessing.

 

[Gaygle]

If it could be proven that the sole reason for their demise, was that someone injected a patient with aids instead of morphine or something ,

LOL

"Damn, i knew i shouldn't have put the AIDS syringe right next to the morphine one!"

 

[KiTBoH]

We were told about a case like this where a man stabbed a woman.

The woman refused a blood transfusion or w/e that would have saved her life and because of that the man didn't get charged with murder/manslaughter. Still got charged for stabbing someone though.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Still got charged for stabbing someone though.

Bit off tbh.

 

[4T5]

Kill first Ask questions later ? I Like it, When do we start ?

 

[Participant]

What if the victim was probably going to die, but the ambulance drove over a cliff and went up in a blazing inferno so it could never be proven that he would have died .

 

[Gaygle]

What if the victim was probably going to die, but the ambulance drove over a cliff and went up in a blazing inferno so it could never be proven that he would have died .

LOL.

Hey, lay off. I was bored and my mind was wandering.

 

[Gaygle]

Well say you cut someone's finger and they went to have a plaster put on... but then a doc injected them with sixteen litres of morphine... there would be a break in causation.

What's a break in causation?

 

[semi-pro waster]

What's a break in causation?

For causation to exist then generally speaking it would have to be reasonably foreseeable e.g. you cut someones finger, it gets a slight infection and they are given antibiotics, then infection and wound heal - normal chain of events that could be expected compared with you cutting someones finger, a doctor deciding to give them chemotherapy and amputate a leg - such a course of action is not reasonably within the boundaries of what you might expect from the initial action. In the latter scenario (unlikely as it is) the chain of causation would be interrupted and your initial action in cutting the persons finger has your guilt (and therefore liability) halted as the point of potential remedies for the cut finger rather than anything resulting from the amputation or chemotherapy.

As also mentioned the thin/eggshell skull rule probably applies. Simple solution of course is not to assault anyone and you don't run the risk of unexpected (for you) repercussions if/when they don't accept medical treatment.

Intent may well play a part in it and mitigate any guilt on your part but it's difficult to give anything more than a very general overview without specifics.

 

[Participant]

If I farted on someone, they vomited, and I died of laughter, could my family sue them?

 

[ac1d1ty]

If you assaulted someone or something, and they refused basic medical treatment that would have saved them and they died as a result (ie. from an infection) - would it still be murder/manslaughter?

R v Blaue 1975

 

[ac1d1ty]

For causation to exist then generally speaking it would have to be reasonably foreseeable e.g. you cut someones finger, it gets a slight infection and they are given antibiotics, then infection and wound heal - normal chain of events that could be expected compared with you cutting someones finger, a doctor deciding to give them chemotherapy and amputate a leg - such a course of action is not reasonably within the boundaries of what you might expect from the initial action. In the latter scenario (unlikely as it is) the chain of causation would be interrupted and your initial action in cutting the persons finger has your guilt (and therefore liability) halted as the point of potential remedies for the cut finger rather than anything resulting from the amputation or chemotherapy.

As also mentioned the thin/eggshell skull rule probably applies. Simple solution of course is not to assault anyone and you don't run the risk of unexpected (for you) repercussions if/when they don't accept medical treatment.

Intent may well play a part in it and mitigate any guilt on your part but it's difficult to give anything more than a very general overview without specifics.

R v Ruby is a good illustration of this.

 

[geekyEd]

R v Blaue 1975

Settles it really, although he obviously stabbed her with the intent to kill her so although it wasn't murder I'm sure he would have had a hefty few years behind bars.