Law Case Study

...

of manslaughter if and individual so senior within its organization that her represents the company’s “directing mind” is convicted of manslaughter”

An organization can be criminally at risk if only they can effectively demonstrate that the most senior levels of the association took part in the commission of the offence. In any case, to demonstrate that data within an organization is extremely difficult in light of the size. The more the organization is enormous the more workers are involved which creates a complexity to demonstrate the liability for gross negligence.

As we said before, the more the corporation is big, the more directors left the management of business to other and only met once a year. The state of mind of the managers is the state of mind of the company in the law’s point of view. If the managers are the state of mind and control what the company does, the agents are considered as mere servants who are doing the work as imposed by superior, consequently they are not representing the mind and will of the company. As shows the case Lenard’s Carrying Co. Ltd. V. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 705, where there was no actual fault on the part of the company. The question was whether damages occurred without the fault or privity of the owner of the ship. But, the fault was that of the managing owner who managed the ship on behalf of the owners as it was held that the company couldn’t dissociate itself from him. In another view, there is two cases where a company was accused and held liable for the fault of its superior officer, Director of Public Prosecution v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Limited [1944] K.B. 14 he was the transport manger and I .C.R. Haulage Limited [1944] K.B. 55 where the act of the managing director was held to be the act of the company and that the company can be guilty of common law conspiracy.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that tries to widen the law on corporate manslaughter in the United Kingdom. The act made another offense separately named corporate manslaughter in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and corporate homicide in Scotland. The Act expects to guarantee that associations are held to record when a death has been brought on as an after effect of gross failings by its senior administration.

Accord to The Ministry of justice (2007):

“The Act was given Royal Assent on 26 July and the majority of it will come into force on 6 April 2008. The Act applies across the UK.”

An association is guilty of the offence if the path in which it sorts out or oversees its exercises causes a demise, and this sums to a gross breach of an applicable obligation of consideration.

And also if the path in which its exercises are overseen or composed by its senior administration. The offense applies where the association owed an obligation of consideration to the exploited person under the law of negligence

In summary, an organization is guilty of the offence if the path in which its exercises are overseen or sorted out causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased. A considerable piece of the rupture probably been in the way exercises were overseen by senior administration.

When it comes to the gross negligence and Manslaughter, we can say that the common law offence of manslaughter by gross negligence has now been abolished and replaced by the offence of corporate manslaughter.

According to Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (2007) chapter 19, An association to which this segment applies is liable of an offense if the route in which its exercises are overseen or organized in a manner that can causes a person’s death or amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organization to the expired. We also consider an organization liable of an offense under this area just if the path in which its exercises are overseen or composed by its senior management is a generous component in the rupture.