Fireman Problem

Fireman problem

* rationality of the gross negligence in the case!!

* Cite authority

Public

1. R v Stephen (the death of William by Stephen’s gross negligence)

* (R v Wright) – whether or not there’s been gross negligence

* joint liabilities due to William’s own action

* joint liability doesn’t mitigate liability

2. R v Margaret & John

* John knew that the floor was cracked (joint responsibilities with Margaret)

* Shouldn’t allow the happening of the fire

* The negligence in keeping the matches, restricted access (needed more facts)

* Margaret’s duty to make sure where their kids were

* Need to determine when their care of duty starts

Private

3. William v Stephen

* William can sue for compensation

* Joint liability for the owner and Stephen

4. John v Stephen

* The lost of house

* Negligence of Stephen (determine whether its gross by getting more facts)

The Doctor

(A)

Private course of action:

1. Sabrina v Walter (negligencecareless; R v Wright; only liability no joint liability)

* Joint liability mitigate (someone can be partly liable)

Public course of action:

1. R v Walter (gross negligence; joint liability with Alonso and perhaps Sabrina; R v Wrightdrink driving, blurry line for the level of gross negligence; more focus on the act that the results were messed up, not the foreseeability of causation of death)

* Joint liability mitigate, but not in public criminal context (seems more gross) (someone can usually be wholly liable)

(B)

Private:

1. Eric v Walter (negligence – breach of duty)

* R v Wright

(C)

Public:

1. R v Walter (gross negligence)

* man slaughter (R v Wright)

* joint liability (R v Wacker)