X continues to drive and has an accident. Following the accident, a test shows that the seizures are caused from a medical condition. In this case, X is negligent because they were unaware of the medical condition and had not been warned to drive. X knew, though, that something was wrong and should have sought treatment, but based on income levels was not aware of the seriousness of the risky behavior.
Part 2- C- X knows they suffer from seizures, has been warned by a doctor that they should not drive, yet contues to drive and causes an accident in which pedestrians are killed. While X did not willfully set out to kill these pedestrians, they were reckless because they were aware of and disregarding medical and personal knowledge that they had a condition that could cause harm to others. A reasonable person would have not driven, not put the events into place (causality) that caused the death of the pedestrians. The model penal code asks "whether the result was consistent with the defendants…. Knowledge or scope of risk by the defendant's reckless or negligent act" (Lippman, p. 136). In this case, the legal answer is yes, driving was within both knowledge and cogent scope of risk for X.
Part 3 -- a status offense is one in which motive is not consideration in guilt. There was clearly no motive in the Sick Aunt dying, and there was no contract that X had to take care of the aunt gratis. There is also no proof that X's actions caused Y to die, there were other options of getting Y to the hospital, and/or the death was not precluded. Status offense is usually focused on juvenelies or others who are not knowingly guildy, but are different depending...
X performed the duty agreed for as long as possible, but never indicated legally that they would care 24/7.
Part 3 B- This scenario buttresses the argument about X's non-complicity in the Aunt's death. Regardless of X's actions, the Aunt would have died and the causality was set in motion long before the hospital trip. The causality, in this case, was the illness, which was lengthy. The Aunt may have been made more comfortable with X's continued care and/or earlier hospital intervention, but the overall result would have been identical. Criminal law does have an omission or failure to act rule that consitutes a liability if failure to act caused a criminal act to follow. Parents, legal guardians and spouses or anyone who voluntarily agrees to care for another because of illness may incur a duty, or an implied duty. We do not know if X was in the home when the Aunt became very ill, or if there was a contract for payment intended or simply implied. If the Aunt contacted X, or if X was living in the home, then X might be considered negligent by ommission. If X neither knew of the seriousness of the issue and/or was not living with the Aunt, then there was only a breach of implied contract in not paying X, not in X failing to act. While the morality of the situation might be different -- X should have let someone know she was leaving, etc., there are unanswered questions as to circumstances surrounding guilt (Kutz, 2007, pp. 303-4).
SOURCES:
Kutz, C. (2007). Complicity:Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. New York: Cambridge
Lippman, M. (2009). Contemporary Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
