Q.2 Liability

 Sam Fischer is an English gold medallist in the 200-metre freestyle. Sam observed a small toddler fall into the swimming pool at a hotel where he was staying. Sam assumed that the lifeguard would save the child, unfortunately that was not the case and the toddler drowned.

The issue in this case is whether Sam Fischer is criminally liable. To establish whether Sam is criminally liable, he must have owed the toddler a duty of care or omission. The term omission means “the failure to act when legally required to do so”[1]. The rule is that for omission to have occurred Sam must have had a duty of care owed under three categories.

1. Contractual Obligation: Where it is a person’s job to protect the public. For example, a gatekeeper, or a lifeguard[2].
2. Under Statue: Every citizen must follow the law. If you are in breach of any law, you may be punished to the extent of your crime. For example, the Road Traffic Act 1961[3]. This act imposes specific duties on drivers. Section 56[4] requires all road users to obtain third party liability insurance[5].
3. Where the accused creates the danger, he may be convicted of an offence if he does nothing to stop the effects of the danger[6].
4. Family members owe a duty of care or omission toward each other. For example, a parent owes a duty of care to his or her child[7].

It is clear that Sam had no contractual obligation in this case. He is a gold medallist swimmer but that does not mean he had any omission by contract. A person who did have a contractual obligation was the lifeguard on duty the day the toddler drowned because a lifeguard is specifically employed to protect swimmers. Sam does not have any liability under statue. There is no law stating citizens who are not contractually obligated must act if they see another person come into life threatening danger. In this case Sam has not created any danger for the toddler. Finally, Sam is not related to the toddler which means he did not owe the toddler a duty of care.

In conclusion with all the evidence gathered, Sam does not have any criminal legal liability to the toddler. Sam had no contractual obligation. Sam was not obligated by statue or by law. Sam did not create any danger for the toddler and Sam also is not related to the toddler. Therefore, Sam is not criminally liable.

---

[1] Kathleen Moore Walsh, Irish Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Gill & Macmillan Ltd 2005).

[2] Conor Hanly, An Introduction to Irish Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Gill and Macmillan Ltd 2006).

[3] Road Traffic Act 1961.

[4] Road Traffic Act 1961, s 56.

[5] Kathleen Moore Walsh, Irish Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Gill & Macmillan Ltd 2005).

[6] Kathleen Moore Walsh, Irish Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Gill & Macmillan Ltd 2005).

[7] Conor Hanly, An Introduction to Irish Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Gill and Macmillan Ltd 2006).