Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
Can you show the specific law relating to this ?
The chap with the speedboat that crashed
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
Can you show the specific law relating to this ?
Ok, coerced is a strong statement. Coerced makes it sound sinister. Is there a source to say that she was dead against it and he spent an hour backhandedly threatening her?
"Poor state" is one thing, which can be seen in photos (the windscreen was translucent instead of transparent, the general visible condition was shabby). However, "poor state" can be a far cry away from "knowing it is in a dangerous state". My girlfriends car is fairly shabby, with rust and scratches on it, and could be described as being in a "poor state", but to my knowledge it's no where near a dangerous state because underneath it's absolutely fine.
Whilst driving twice the speed limit is not safe, it a) doesn't instantly mean it's dangerous and b) it happened prior to the incident and his speeding 10 minutes previous had nothing to do with her crashing. The moment he stopped speeding and no one got hurt, his speed ceased to be a factor.
They stopped before handing the wheel over. So she had the option to say "Sleazy McSleazeface, no, i don't want to drive this thing, i don't know how it works and I don't feel safe doing it. I'm also very drunk". She didn't say that, she decided to give it a go. I would say *that* act is grossly negligent.
He's drunk, just been thrown out of a boat without warning into ice cold water at midnight in the middle of December. I think him not making entirely rational decisions can be somewhat excused...
I think she made many mistakes. 1) She didn't put on a life jacket 2) she got very drunk 3) then decided to tried to drive a boat, which she saw was poor in appearance, 4) in the middle of the night despite having no experience in driving boats. 5) She is likely to have also been going too fast.
If we're saying he's culpable for some element of this, then she undoubtedly bears more responsibility than "getting into a boat".
My point is, where does the chain of responsibility end? If we're no longer placing the responsibility on the person in control of the vehicle, this chain could be very long.
If I'm putting person 1 in control of my vehicle, and my other friend is also present (person 2) and watching, who could have reasonably foreseen that person 1 wasn't safe to drive the vehicle, does he become guilty of manslaughter also? What about if videos it and uploads it to InstatubeApp to show their mates that aren't present. If none of them do anything, despite it being obvious it was dangerous, are all of them guilty of the same offence? All may bear a small amount of "responsibility" for not stopping the incident, but if we're going to do that, there are going to be a *lot* of people convicted of manslaughter.
I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying. Absolutely, if you have taken your car to a mechanic, he bodges your brake job, and someone gets killed as a result this is a perfect and good usage of manslaughter by gross negligence. If you merely take your car to a mechanic for an MOT and he fails it for something (which he makes you aware of) and you drive away, does he commit the offence then? Surely he should have prevented you from driving the car away knowing it was in a dangerous condition? Surely he then bears some responsibility for your death? If he bears some responsibility then does that make him guilty of manslaughter by GN?
*Exactly*! And this is the point that this trial hinges upon - does Sleazebag have a legal obligation of a duty of care to the girl? If he does, then there should be a *lot* more regular citizens finding themselves in the dock. This offence only usually applies to those with special skills (electricians/doctors/policeman/nurses/carers/mechanics/companies who produce items/an employer who has health and safety obligations). But now they're applying it to a regular person saying that he had a duty of care to her?
However, this point you've made here contradicts your first point. Your inaction has lead to someone's death. What you are saying is that you'd only be guilty of MbGN if you owned and handed over responsibility of the vehicle that was involved in the collision? Other than this, you have still been grossly negligent in your actions and not prevented or even sought to dissuade your absolutely blind drunk friend from driving home, despite reasonably foreseeing this issue.
From what I know of this case, I would contend that he doesn't owe her a *legal* duty of care and that his actions whilst negligent, were not grossly negligent.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
My points dont contradict each other, my whole point is that the law defines who is legally responsible. A car owner or the person who signs for it is responsible for who is in charge of the vehicle. I am not saying it is fair or right but if you start making others responsible, such as a friend of the drink driver who does not own the vehicle, then the definition of responsibility becomes to blurred and a law must have clarity and be definitive.
While i think the punishment does not fit the responsibility he should have, the law defines him as responsible for her death.
While i think the punishment does not fit the responsibility he should have, the law defines him as responsible for her death.
When considering a MbGN case, the law *does not* define who is legally responsible - which is the point. It's so open ended. It started with convictions of those with special skills (and therefore often implying a duty of care), with their level of negligence tested at what a professional in their line of work would consider fell below the standard (gross negligence), which made complete sense. If i'm a mechanic I have a duty of care to fix your car to a safe standard. If I don't and you die, then a fellow mechanic comes in and examines the crashed vehicle and says "**** me who did this brake job!? No wonder they couldn't stop." then this is a reliable conviction. However, in this case they're trying to use good moral standards as these tests and make them fit the offence, but the difference being that "good moral standards" is not defined in statute, unlike other countries who have good Samaritan laws.
And this is exactly what has happened in this case. They've convicted Sleazey even thought he has no legally held duty of care, unlike the others who have been convicted of this offence, and how do you decide on his negligence as opposed to hers?
In this case it seems as though that the prosecution have cleverly and successfully managed to heavily bring his morally questionable character into the mix (converse to her moral innocence) which has almost certainly had a sway on the juries verdict. It'll be interesting to see what happens when it goes to appeal.
Last edited:
I'm not disputing what you have written, it makes perfect clarity and i agree
But the guy was in the same vehicle, so he shares the same responsibilty - makes sure she puts on a lifejacket, she isn't drunk, she doesn't go too fast etc..........
Blame lies with both, and there is only one left to take blame in this case
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 1,064
Something similar in relation to another incident a few years back...
"Could you please advise, other than Solas & Marpol, what the legal responsibilities are for a leisure Skipper, particularly in regard to any crew (by crew, one assumes non fee paying, but could involve family members & also cost sharing friends). Also, should an accident occur to any crew member (even loss of life), what are the repercussions. Does the leisure vessel owner, if aboard automatically become 'Skipper' for legal arguments?"
RYA Legal Reply -
"Below is general advice on the duty which you may owe crew members and/or guests aboard your vessel:
In the absence of, and at times in addition to, contractual relations between those on board a vessel, the skipper/owner of the vessel will owe a duty of care towards the crew and guests on board. Broadly speaking you must take “reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. In this instance your “neighbour” being crew and guests aboard your vessel and “reasonable care” in this context is a question of fact to be determined by the court.
In the event of a breach of an owed duty of care, the ordinary standard being one of “reasonable care,” you may be liable if damage is incurred as a result of your breach of duty and provided there was no intervening event which broke the chain of causation.
I also attach an RYA link which outlines the regulations which govern pleasure craft users, which includes COLREGS, SOLAS V, MARPOL, manning and equipment regulations:
http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/reg...gulations.aspx
A lot more discussion on the subject here http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?337269-A-Skipper-s-Responsibilities-RYA-Legal
"Could you please advise, other than Solas & Marpol, what the legal responsibilities are for a leisure Skipper, particularly in regard to any crew (by crew, one assumes non fee paying, but could involve family members & also cost sharing friends). Also, should an accident occur to any crew member (even loss of life), what are the repercussions. Does the leisure vessel owner, if aboard automatically become 'Skipper' for legal arguments?"
RYA Legal Reply -
"Below is general advice on the duty which you may owe crew members and/or guests aboard your vessel:
In the absence of, and at times in addition to, contractual relations between those on board a vessel, the skipper/owner of the vessel will owe a duty of care towards the crew and guests on board. Broadly speaking you must take “reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. In this instance your “neighbour” being crew and guests aboard your vessel and “reasonable care” in this context is a question of fact to be determined by the court.
In the event of a breach of an owed duty of care, the ordinary standard being one of “reasonable care,” you may be liable if damage is incurred as a result of your breach of duty and provided there was no intervening event which broke the chain of causation.
I also attach an RYA link which outlines the regulations which govern pleasure craft users, which includes COLREGS, SOLAS V, MARPOL, manning and equipment regulations:
http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/reg...gulations.aspx
A lot more discussion on the subject here http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?337269-A-Skipper-s-Responsibilities-RYA-Legal
Oh, morally he's definitely partially responsibly for being an idiot and if he managed to get a decent nights sleep since, he's morally bankrupt. However, you don't get convicted of manslaughter for being partially "responsible" and there should be a separation between morality and legality.
As my examples have said above, there are many situations when you could be morally responsible for something, but nowhere near manslaughter worthy. If a group of friends don't stop their friend from drink driving after a night on the lash, and he kills himself on the way home, they would forever by morally responsible for not doing more to stop him, but until this case came along, they would have nothing to worry about legally as they didn't have a duty of care towards him. If we're now saying that anyone who has even partial responsibility for something = the are guilty of manslaughter, this is not right IMO. We are moving further and further away from personal responsibility and the fact remains that she was an adult, who knew she was wasted, who chose to drive a ropey old boat in the middle of the night, with no life jacket on, despite having never had any experience in driving any boats. She is responsible for her actions, legally and morally.
My opinion is morally they are both partially responsible for her death. Legally, she would be responsible and legally he would not as his level of negligence was not gross and he has no evidenced duty of care towards her.
If you look at previous cases of MbGN they are all employers/doctors/nurses/policeman/teachers/tradesmen, all of which with well documented duties of care. But in this case they've used the emotional angle in this case to make it fit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,503
- Location
- Crowmarsh
I guess she is partially responsible, but then she's not around anymore is she?
I disagree as a driver I’m not responsible for ensuring my adult passenger wears a seatbelt.
She was an adult, she got drunk, she drove, she crashed. Both were foolish.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
I'm confused - why is he in such trouble? She was adult...
You are in as much as you control the vehicle and can refuse to drive unless the seatbelt is applied.
She died, he went on the run to russia for months.
Panic, guilt ? Thats for the courts to find out
Whether you disagree or not, the law says you are responsible for every passenger in your car, just like you'd be responsible for knowingly letting an uninsured driver drive your car.
As for the lad in this case, I'm pretty sure there are laws targetting people who don't intervene with drunk drivers of cars, as in, knowingly letting a drunk driver behind the wheel of a car you can also be held accountable.
Were you thinking of purchasing a speedboat and now reconsidering?
That he went on the run for months was kept from the jury AFAIK.
I don’t think the law does say that.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/ans...ke-sure-that-adult-passengers-wear-seatbelts#
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,244
- Location
- Billericay, UK
The guy done himself no favors in terms of PR, he came across as an cowardly arrogant ***** tbh, had he turned for his day in court and explained his actions I can't help but feel his sentence would have been a lot less to the point where you may have got a suspended sentence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,503
- Location
- Crowmarsh
Fully deserves his sentence if you ask me.
Going on the run for months says quite a lot about this cowardly individual.
Going on the run for months says quite a lot about this cowardly individual.