Analysis of Criminal and Tort Law: Law 1 Make Up Test

This assignment analyzes two distinct areas of law: criminal law and torts. The criminal law section examines two scenarios. The first involves a minor taking drugs from their parent's cabinet, exploring issues of negligence, causation, and mens rea. The second scenario involves a hunting accident where a person is killed, analyzing homicide by recklessness, the absence of mens rea, and strict liability. The torts law section focuses on a case of negligence where a person falls on an icy driveway and injures themselves, discussing duty of care, breach, causation, and damages. The analysis applies legal principles, including case precedents, to determine liability and potential outcomes in each situation, along with relevant references.

Running head: MAKE UP TEST 1
Law1 Make Up Test
Name
Institution

MAKE UP TEST 2
1. Criminal Law
a. Relevant facts
Laura notices that her pills run out of her pills before time and her 14- year old has been taking
drugs from her cabinet.
b. Rule
It is a crime to give intentionally or negligently drugs to any person who has not been prescribed
to take such drugs.
Omission to act is usually not an offense and carries no liabilities. However, in the case of
minors assumption of care is an exception to the rule of omission to act. Common law in R v
Chattaway imposes the duty of care on parents and resides with them as long as they are
dependants.
Voluntary Act- Does Flo access drugs as a result of Laura;s voluntary act, is it intentional?
Causation- Taking of un-prescribed drugs by the minor should be directly linked to Laura's
negligence.
Social harm- is there a possibility of social harm from the negligence.
Mens rea- For a crime to be complete there has to be actus reus and mens rea
c. Facts pattern
Voluntary act- There is no voluntary act connecting Laura to the teenager taking her pills. If
anything she shelves her medicine which is what a deligent by-stander would do.

MAKE UP TEST 3
Causation social harm- Laura puts the medicine in a safe place, the shelf, but still, the teenager
finds the medicine and takes them without Laura's knowledge.
Mens rea- There is the absence of knowledge, intent, and motive in Laura's actions if anything
she only notices that her pills get finished quicker than they should.
Conclusion-concurrence between elements in rule and pattern
When Flo is taking drugs, she gets them from a place where they are shelved. Flo’s behavior of
taking drugs is not as a result of Laura’s negligence but probably her own sneaky behavior.
Laura does not do anything to make the drugs accessible negligently or intentionally. Laura puts
the drugs as any common person would do, she is not negligent or reckless hence not guilty of
making the drugs accessible to her daughter.
2. Criminal law
Relevant facts
Luke and Lorelai go deer hunting together, and when Luke notices a deer behind Lorelai, he
shoots with the intention to kill the dear but kills Lorelai.
Rule
Homicide is killing someone, recklessly knowingly or intentionally
Voluntary Act- is the Actus reus, which also involves pulling a trigger.

MAKE UP TEST 4
Causation- links an occurrence to conduct. "But for" test is used to show causation. Intervening
causes can remove liability; in R v Cheshire (1991) medical negligence breaks the chain of
causation.
Social harm-When a person thinks that a particular action may cause harm, but continues to do
it anyway. Rules of social harm require that due diligence is carried out so that action are the
same as the general standard of care from a by-standers perspective. When one is careless, what
is on their mind ought not to be proven, as long as the accused deviates from the common
standards of care.
Mens rea- Can be proved through intention, knowledge, and recklessness in negligence cases.
Facts pattern
Voluntary act- In the case of Luke and Lorelai, Luke pulls the trigger voluntarily aiming at the
deer but shoots Lorelai instaed.
Causation social harm
Causation links the result to the action, and in this case the death of Lorelai to Luke's shooting.
When Luke pulls the trigger, his bullet kills Lorelai despite the fact that he was purposefully
aiming for the deer.
Mens rea
A person is considered culpable if they are guilty both in action and in thought. Mens rea serves
to show a person's intention. Direct intent shows what a person was aiming at and what they
purposed to do. The oblique intent, on the other hand, is where consequences are not desirable,
but they are certain they could have occurred. In Luke's case, there is the absence of Mens-rea.

MAKE UP TEST 5
However, death still occurs. As much as the actus reus is positive, the mens rea requirement is
not present.
Conclusion-concurrence between elements in rule and pattern
Luke is guilty of homicide by recklessness because he ignored the possibility of a substantial risk
occurring. In this case as much as Luke does not have intent or purpose to shoot Lorelai, he is
still culpable because Lorelai is dead and someone ought to be held responsible. It is also a strict
liability because it is provided by the statute under the category of homicide caused by
recklessness leading to the death of another person.
3. Torts Law
Relevant facts
Laura aged 19 drives her bike down the street but does not pay attention, and she crashes n a
tree. She ran to a property of Mr. and Mrs. Lopez who are her close friends, and she plans to see
them later that day. Lopez family had not shoveled their driveway. Laura also slipped and fell in
a small patch near the potch, and her hand critical of her violin career is bleeding and bruised.
Rule
For a person to be liable in tort one needs to prove that there was the duty of care and the duty
was breached. It should also be proven that the plaintiff suffered loss or injury as a consequence
of the breach and damages can be given.
Act –Defendant creates a foreseeable risk which also has foreseeable consequences.

MAKE UP TEST 6
Causation -The risk created needs to be foreseeable and that the plaintiff suffered an injury
which can be compensated for damages.
Damages- The defendant is liable for the damages which are foreseeable, remote damages
cannot be compensated.
Fact pattern
Act- In this case, the defendants fail to act by not shoveling the driveway.
Causation- The defendant's failure to shovel the driveway after it had snowed directly leads to
Laura's fall and consequently bruising her arm. Failure to shovel the driveway is the intervening
act as seen in Groenewald v Groenewald (1998) that breaks the chain of causation, despite
having hit a tree before, her trip and fall contributes to her injury.
Damages- In this case, damages can be estimated regarding medical expenses, and the amount
she would have made from playing violin until her hand heals since it is bruised not a serious
injury. If the bruise is too bad, the defendant might have to compensate for the loss of her income
during her career, depending on the extent which she is disadvantaged. The damages can be
reduced when defendants show that other factors contributed to the injury.
Conclusion
The defendants are liable for negligence because they must shovel their driveway every time it
snows. Failure to shovel the driveway on time could lead to trips and falls especially on passers-
by, and specifically their visitors. Even if Marlen had not tripped at the point of crushing the tree,
she would have probably tripped when she would have visited the Lopez's family, and they could
still be liable for negligence in their premises. Tripping and bruising her arm was a secondary act

MAKE UP TEST 7
which was foreseeable hence the defendants are liable to pay damages for negligence. However,
they can use the tripping and falling of a tree as a defense, because tripping was an intervening
act to reduce their damages.

MAKE UP TEST 8
References
Baudouin, J. L., & Linden, A. M. (2010). Tort law in Canada. Kluwer Law International.
Dubber, M., & Hörnle, T. (2014). Criminal law: a comparative approach. Oxford University Press.
Heller, K. J., & Dubber, M. (Eds.). (2010). The handbook of comparative criminal law. Stanford University Press
Martín-Casals, M., & Papayannis, D. M. (Eds.). (2015). Uncertain Causation in Tort Law. Cambridge University Press
Stark, F. (2016). Culpable Carelessness: Recklessness and Negligence in the Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press
Steel, S. (2015). Proof of causation in Tort Law (Vol. 120). Cambridge University Press.