Was Sams Death Accidental Free Essay Example, 1750 words

The culprits are liable to be charged with manslaughter, as will be argued in the sections of the paper. Angela, as the mother of Sam, took the child for a walk and instead concentrated on her novel, rather than watching over the child. The child incidentally strayed to the boating lake and eventually drowned. Angela was responsible for the safety of the son given that she is the one who decided to take him out for a walk. Being the decision-maker as to where to go, she was obliged to watch over him as he played. The place was within proximity of a boating lake and thus there was the obvious probability of imminent danger to a person who knew not how to swim (Kidner, 1987). A classic explanation to the duty bestowed on the mother and the reason for holding her liable can be found in the Caparo test as found in Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990). In this case, the judges ruled that or there to be the duty of care, a person there needs to be some elements that require to be fulfilled; foreseeability of an action, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonability for a duty of care to be imposed. We will write a custom essay sample on Was Sams Death Accidental or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Angela was reasonably supposed to be aware of the environs that she exposed her son to, and thus common law puts her under a supervisory obligation over the son. The environment within which the son was playing around was within the proximity of a boating lake, and therefore the child was vulnerable to dangers that might have arisen from the lake. On proof of lack omission of the duty of care as required in law, Angela is therefore culpable of negligence and is liable for the death of Sam, her son. Angela can still be held liable for a crime given the conditions as stated in Ballard v. Aribe (1986). In this case, there does not need to be foreseeable facts that could lead to the liability being passed to the defendant. The supporting factor arises from the fact that the said neglect is directly related to the defendant and had a sufficient likelihood that it resulted in the harm that befell the young boy.