Scenario
Adam owns a construction company and has just got a contract to rebuild flooring in a block of
flats. The block of flats was still in use during the construction and one day in a rush to finish
early, Adam covers a hole in the floor with some cheap boards. One of the residents walks over
the board not knowing it was weak and falls through the floor 20ft to his death. The police arrest
Adam on a charge of Corporate manslaughter.
M2
The correct law for this scenario is Corporate Manslaughter, the main for this is that the incident
happened in a workplace and that the owner of the construction company had a duty of care to
the residents which he did not act upon. Also, it crosses with gross breach as Adam did have a
duty of care but did not behave at a certain standard, this is shown in his actions of covering a
20ft hole with weak wooden planks just to finish early, which resulted to a resident’s death.
To prove that it is corporate manslaughter, it must cover these points:
1. An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its
activities are managed or organised
a) causes a person’s death, and
b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the
deceased.
This is different to Murder in that there is no direct intention but rather the employer has acted in
a way that has risked the life of another.
Firstly the ways that the activities that the organisation was doing was lawful as the owner was
in a contract to do some work, however one day they went against the contract by covering a
20ft hole with some cheap boards just to finish early. As the block of flats was still in use, they
thought less of how it could impact the residents and whether it would be safe to put cheap
boards to cover a hole. Although it was not their intention to do any harm to the local residents,
they had the mens rea to do something recklessly to benefit themselves. As you can see
Adams’s task of covering a hole was not managed well, which lead to a person’s death.
Secondly, seeing that it was Adam’s responsibility to make sure that their construction does not
affect anybody else in the building, there is a duty of care here. Adam owed his workers and the
local residents an equal level of care which he recklessly failed in, even though companies owe
a high duty of care to their employees and customers than the duty normal people owe to each
other. This is the reason why this has happened, as Adam was making sure that his employees
are safe that he did not think of the local residents within the building. This resulted in him
risking a local resident’s life in pursuit of an early finish.
Adam owns a construction company and has just got a contract to rebuild flooring in a block of
flats. The block of flats was still in use during the construction and one day in a rush to finish
early, Adam covers a hole in the floor with some cheap boards. One of the residents walks over
the board not knowing it was weak and falls through the floor 20ft to his death. The police arrest
Adam on a charge of Corporate manslaughter.
M2
The correct law for this scenario is Corporate Manslaughter, the main for this is that the incident
happened in a workplace and that the owner of the construction company had a duty of care to
the residents which he did not act upon. Also, it crosses with gross breach as Adam did have a
duty of care but did not behave at a certain standard, this is shown in his actions of covering a
20ft hole with weak wooden planks just to finish early, which resulted to a resident’s death.
To prove that it is corporate manslaughter, it must cover these points:
1. An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its
activities are managed or organised
a) causes a person’s death, and
b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the
deceased.
This is different to Murder in that there is no direct intention but rather the employer has acted in
a way that has risked the life of another.
Firstly the ways that the activities that the organisation was doing was lawful as the owner was
in a contract to do some work, however one day they went against the contract by covering a
20ft hole with some cheap boards just to finish early. As the block of flats was still in use, they
thought less of how it could impact the residents and whether it would be safe to put cheap
boards to cover a hole. Although it was not their intention to do any harm to the local residents,
they had the mens rea to do something recklessly to benefit themselves. As you can see
Adams’s task of covering a hole was not managed well, which lead to a person’s death.
Secondly, seeing that it was Adam’s responsibility to make sure that their construction does not
affect anybody else in the building, there is a duty of care here. Adam owed his workers and the
local residents an equal level of care which he recklessly failed in, even though companies owe
a high duty of care to their employees and customers than the duty normal people owe to each
other. This is the reason why this has happened, as Adam was making sure that his employees
are safe that he did not think of the local residents within the building. This resulted in him
risking a local resident’s life in pursuit of an early finish.
