There is a tragedy in California that has led to a particularly challenging question of proximate causation. It appears well established that Arman Samsonian, 19, was driving recklessly when he slammed his SUV into a utility pole and a fire hydrant. It was a bad combination. When two individuals ran over to help, they were both electrocuted to death by the electrified water from the hydrant in contact with a fallen wire. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Karen Nudell last week approved charges of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence for the deaths of good Samaritans, Irma Zamora (right) and Stacey Schreiber (left). The defense insists these were unforeseeable intervening acts that should not be the basis for criminal charges.
Witnesses say that Samsonian was speeding and possible street racing, but his family has denied the allegation.
After the crash, Daniel Woloszyn testified that he had pulled over to call 911. As he called, his wife, Irma Zamora, jumped out of their vehicle to help the driver. HE then got out and saw his wife lying on the ground. She was dead. As he tried to help her, he was shocked. Schreiber, 39, was then electrocuted trying to assist Samsonian.
The defense appears ready to concede that Samsonian was driving recklessly but says that the convergence of the wire and the hydrant in causing the deaths was unforeseeable. In both criminal law and torts, proximate causation concepts are used to limit liability. These manslaughter or negligent homicide charges straddle the line between criminal and tort liability. Missing is true intent to harm. The intent in found in the driving recklessly or in other cases driving under the influence. Yet, this case does present a novel question of how far that can go. Is any chain of events attributable to the defendant so long as it is directly linked to his original crime. In torts, the question is handled differently under two doctrine: Polemis and Wagon Mound. Under Polemis, any direct consequence of an act of negligence can be attributed to the defendant. In that case, a plank was negligently kicked into a ship hold that resulted in an unexpected explosion. In Wagon Mound, an English court rejected that approach and required that the harm be foreseeable. As change in harm could cut off liability in some case under Wagon Mound. Under the torts analysis, a Wagon Mound jurisdiction could cut off liability here for the deaths. After all that case involved oil passing on the surface of the water, catching fire, and burning property on the other side of a bay or port. Moreover, in torts, rescuers are foreseeable as Judge Cardozo held in Wagner v. International Railway, 232 N.Y. 176 (1926), when he held that “Danger invites rescue.”
Causation principles can be different in criminal law. However, the general concept remains one of foreseeability. Otherwise, prosecutors could daisy chain events to make out murder charges. This does not require that many daisies of course. It was foreseeable that he would do property damages and a fallen wire is certainly within that universe. However, this required a combination of the wire, the hydrant, and the rescuers. I find this a difficult case. I have qualms about extending proximate causation in such cases. Standing on the street before the accident, I would be hard pressed to foresee such a chain of events, though the fallen wire and electrocution would be within my range of possibilities. If one could foresee the fallen wire, a wet street is not too far beyond that expectation. For that reason, I can appreciate the view of the court that this is what can come from speeding on city streets.
What do you think?
Source: LA Times
“Danger invites Rescue.” This has been established law since the 1920’s. See Wagner v. International Railway. Wikipedia summary here
For those inclined towards “EVERYBODY knows approaching downed power lines — or even a downed utility pole is foolhardy in the extreme” I would point out that the accident scene involved a lamppost approximately six feet high, with NO visible power lines and no utility pole, so it is extremely likely that the average person (i.e. a “reasonable” person) wouldn’t think twice about seeing that pole lying on the ground
Also, a hydrant that is off the road and above a curb is NOT considered a “hydrants subject to possible vehicular damage” with respect to the UFC – otherwise virtually every fire hydrant in the country would require a protective metal post next to it.
So, assuming he was driving recklessly, manslaughter charges might be harsh, but they are not unreasonable or illegal
I dont know about anybody else but where im from( statewise) they have PSA’s that tell you to stay away from downed power lines. So i honestly feel that he should NOT get charged for their deaths. Its common sense you see downed power-lines on a wet road you stay away.
Disgusting diversion – “blame the victims” – Next recycle those who dump the consequences of their selfish acts, with disregard for the devastation to others and their Families, so they can be free to repeat their atrocities, and give more paydays to Criminal Lawyers. That’s who wins, and wins really big, often from public coffers.
Of course here on the Right Coast in Florida, a man is clearly guilty of manslaughter and instead of being put away for 20 to 30 years he is set free. On the Left Coast an unfortunate accident by a stupid youth results in a manslaughter conviction. We are, as a people, quite a ‘salad’ as the French would say.
The videos show a small white compact car involved in the crash, NO GUARD POSTS protecting the hydrant, and the hydrant was very close to the utility pole.
The following sections taken from the Uniform Fire Code, 1997 edition …
If the guy was not racing, it is difficult to see how he could get thru a properly protected fire hydrant guard post to impact a pole hard enough to bring down its wires.
THE CHARGES ARE APPROPRIATE. WHETHER THE RECKLESS DRIVER IS “GUILTY” WILL BE UP TO A JURY. BUT THERE IS NO REASON THAT THE DRIVER SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH THE DEATH OF HIS GOOD SAMARITAN RESCUERS. IT IS FORSEEABLE THAT SOMEONE WOULD ATTEMPT HIS RESCUE. AND THE CONDITION OF WATER AND ELECTRICITY FROM DOWNED LINES IS CERTAINLY A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE RECKLESS CONDUCT. IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO “electrocute” ANYONE. HIS CRIMINAL INTENT IS INFERRED FROM THE CHOSEN ACTION OF BEING RECKLESS AND DISREGARDING THE HARMFUL RESULTS OF THAT CONDUCT.
We’ve talked about the nature of culpable causation quite a bit over teh years and I still subscribe to a broader definition in civil cases and a narrower one in criminal cases on due process grounds. I am drawn to the Andrews dissent in the famous Palsgraf case where he wrote:
Every man owes to the world at large a duty of refraining from those acts that may reasonably threaten the safety of others. … The consequences are not confined to those who might probably be hurt.
“I find this a difficult case … What do you think?”
I think it is a difficult criminal case, less so on the torts side, as you indicated.
I am wondering about Public Utility Codes, in the sense of construction codes.
Specifically, putting fire hydrants that close to electrical poles that are subject to automobile impact (I mean close to the street pavement or sidewalk).
It is more foreseeable that they can be crashed into close to a road, and if the hydrant is too close to the pole, that both can suffer the damage and lead to the circumstances at issue.
Also, when those poles are not protected with concrete filled 6″ pipes on the most-likely-to-be-impacted side, it is foreseeable that great damage can happen to them.
Codes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and those facts are unclear so far.
Could negligence by a public utility (government) be part of an estoppel against proximate causation (see Yale Law Journal, Vol. 78 No. 6, May 1969, “Applying Estoppel Principles In Criminal Cases”) because of such negligence?
I would tend to agree that if the driver was driving recklessly, that the charges could be appropriate. As Gene suggested, no one wins in this case.
Here’s the story behind the Van Horn case….
The Supreme Court of California has ruled that one good deed may very well not go unpunished — unleashing a debate not only on who is a Good Samaritan but also who shouldn’t even think about being one. On Dec. 19, the court made a decision in the case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti. The case alleged that Torti worsened the injuries suffered by Van Horn by yanking her “like a rag doll” from a wrecked car on Nov. 1, 2004, thus rendering Van Horn a paraplegic. The court found that Torti wasn’t protected from legal action under California’s current Good Samaritan laws.
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1871331,00.html#ixzz2aXnDnvZV
I have to think overzealous prosecutor, but California law is has some kinks in it that allow this kind of prosecution. In Van Horn v. Watson, a case law precedent was established that basically upended their Good Samaritan Law and opened the path for civil liability. The California Legislature, upset that the judiciary had thwarted the intent of the law, revised the law to again limit civil liability but they made exceptions for both gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct. Because this person was allegedly street racing and gross negligence and willful or wanton misconduct can be appropriate basis for manslaughter, if proof of the street racing exists, then the charge is appropriate. However, the legal technicalities aside, this is a sad thing. They look like lovely women who lost their lives for simply trying to help. What do I think? I think the charge may be appropriate and that in some situations, no one wins.
Good Samaritan laws are laws or acts protecting those who choose to serve and tend to others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders’ hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. In Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for ‘wrongdoing’. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.[1] Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals’ or career emergency responders’ on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity.
The principles contained in good Samaritan laws more typically operate in countries in which the foundation of the legal system is English Common Law, such as Australia.[2] In many countries that use civil law as the foundation for their legal systems, the same legal effect is more typically achieved using a principle of duty to rescue.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Good_Samaritan_law.html
This is patently wrong…. The purpose of the good samaritian laws are to give immunity for ordinary people to assist in accidents….etc…
http://www.lawschoolblog.org/californias-new-good-samaritan-law-attempts-to-save-lives/
The positions of the hydrant and utilities might also be just as to blame – were they such that it was predictable that an out of control car might hit them?
As much as I would like a manslaughter conviction for this shitbird, I don’t see it. Hopefully he was driving a parent’s vehicle and they have a lot of insurance. The victims need to seek their remedy in civil court.
Its a mess because of our legal system. Did the reckless driver ask to be helped out? Good sams have to realize all the dangers before they jump into the fray. Say the driver was not reckless and this accident happened. The result is the same for the good sams but what about the “but for her actions” argument? Unfortunately for me this boils down to which barrister gets to squeeze some $$ out of someone.
It is an unfortunate set of circumstances, and one feels badly for the fates of the Good Samaritans, but it also is illustrative of the recent historical trend in this country of trying to hold someone else responsible for one’s own actions that end in a negative outcome. One would think, even in the heat of the moment, that an alert person would notice electrical lines and water and know not to go near the area. When one ignores or misses cues such as these and chooses to involve one’s self, it’s a choice one makes and one must live with the consequences.
Too many daisies for me.
When you see an electrical wire down – stay away. There might be an argument for assumption of risk on the part of the rescuers, but I don’t know how that would apply in a criminal case.
If the driver crashed due to being reckless, I agree she should be held responsible. But for her actions, these two people would be alive. What a tragic mess.