R v Stone & Dobinson 1977 Case Facts

The litigants, S and D, were a couple who took in the person in question, S’s sister, as a tenant. S had extreme incapacities, being to some extent hard of hearing and visually impaired. D had learning troubles. While remaining with the litigants, the casualty became incapable to really focus on herself, having long battled with emotional well-being issues and fixation on her weight. D put forth a few attempts to really focus on her, bringing her food and washing her with the held of a neighbor. Nonetheless, her endeavors were not maintained and lacking, and the casualty died. The respondents were accused of murder.

Case Issus

The issue was the jury were qualified for find that the litigants owed an obligation of care to the person in question. Moreover, the meaning of ‘gross carelessness’ with the end goal of a murder conviction was in issue.

Case Outcome for R v Stone & Dobinson

The jury were qualified for observe that an obligation of care was owed because the casualty was not just a tenant in that frame of mind of the litigants yet additionally had nearer connections to each. For Stone’s situation, an obligation of care was owed on the premise that she was a close family member, while Dobinson had embraced an obligation of care by washing her and giving food.

Concerning the issue of carelessness, the Court of Allure held that to ground a conviction for homicide the respondents probably been ‘terribly careless’ in regard of their break of obligation. Geoffrey Path LJ proposed that such gross carelessness expected the litigants to have been either ‘not interested in’ the gamble of injury, or have predicted the gamble and run it in any case.