CRM 200 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Criminal Negligence, Faith Healing, Dangerous Driving
2 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Week 5 CRM 200
• Age, experience, education is not relevant, to give the reasonable person these
characteristics makes it a subjective test
• The reasonable person will only have the characteristics of the accused in very limited
cases
• In tort law and civil law negligence is conduct that is unreasonable
• Dangerous driving causing death and manslaughter by an unlawful act, use the second
degree of negligence
• The analysis is, was the conduct a market departure from what is reasonable, was it
even further from what most of us consider reasonable conduct
• R.v.Hundal, the accused got into a fatal accident, the accused testified that he went
through the light he it as ello, eidee as raised to otradit Hudal’s tellig,
witnesses testified they saw his truck pass through the intersection after the light had
turned red, another witness testified they had been driving behind him and saw him go
through another intersection when the light was red, police testified that at the specific
intersection there is a long period of delay between one light turning red and the other
turig gree, ourt held Hudal’s odut as a arket departure fro hat ould e
epeted fro a reasoale perso ad Hudal’s oitio for dagerous driig
causing death stood, pattern of irresponsible driving
• R.v. Beatty, the accused who had been driving safely suddenly crossed, witnesses testify
they had observed the vehicle being driven in a safe manner before the accident
occurred, toxicology report showed no intoxicants, when giving testimony Beatty stated
he did’t ko hat happeed ad he oetaril lost osiousess, the ourt
argued his conduct in this regard was not a market departure from the standard of a
reasonable person and there was an acquittal
• Criminal negligence, is a separate criminal law charge under s. 219, when a person is
harged ith riial egligee the stadard that eeds to e proed is higher, it’s a
market and substantial departure,
• Tutton and J.F., parents have been negligent towards the care of their children and their
children have died
• 1989 Tutton, two parents, charged with criminal negligence under s.219, parents of a 5
yr old who died, their 5 year old had serious diabetes, required regular insulin injections,
the parents had a deepl held elief i faith healig ad the elieed the did’t eed
to give their child insulin because God would protect their children from harm, their
beliefs leave to a first episode where the kid ends up in the hospital almost dying, the
doctor tells them to give their child insulin, they continue to not give their child insulin
and the child died, criminal negligence charge, their behavior is a market and substantial
departure expected of a reasonable person even after they were told by a medical
professional that they had to do so, they argued mistake of fact, they really held this
belief in faith healing, standard for s.219 is an objective fault element, any mistake of
fact argument relates to the fault element of the crime, not whether or not they
subjectively held that belief but rather would a reasonably objective person hold that
belief
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
