a man goes into a house to rob it only to find that the owener of the house is still inside. on running away the owner chases the robber and catches him and hits him a few times leaving bruses.. is this neglegence
2006-10-09 02:01:04 · 24 answers · asked by smallfry 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It sounds like assault to me. I heard a guy got trapped in someones garage and couldn't get out they were off on vacation and he ate dog food for a week and sued them and won.
2006-10-09 02:04:55 · answer #1 · answered by sideways 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
NO!! Negligence is when you were supposed to be able to do something, but do not carry out that function properly or didn't do it at all, or you did something wrong, which you have been trained to do. for example, a doctor prescribing wrong medicine.
An the situation about the man beating up the robber is wrong. The owner should have called the police, he didn't, and had to CHASE him in order to hit him. If the robber was coming at the owner, then the owner coulda stabbed him, but because the robber was running away, the owner cannot say this was even self-defence. Therefore, if something bad hap pend to the robber as a result of the owner, the owner could and would be punished for it with mitigating circumstances, (mitigating circumstance = the man was robbing his house)
2006-10-09 02:11:39 · answer #2 · answered by london lady 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely.....if the attack was carried out with the person in a normal state of mind and if you like as a revenge motive to the initial stealing...
If the attack was due to fear or a perceived sense of needing to defend oneself....then you could probably argue your case although it would be a judgemental one for those trying the case.
I'm not saying the law is an ****......but sometimes it appears to be. Having said that you do need to make a distinction between reasonable force given a predicament and being able to take the law into your own hands given the slightest bit of provocation.
Most normal law abiding citizens should know where the cross over lies.....
2006-10-09 02:17:22 · answer #3 · answered by Robbo31 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no negligence - just common assault.
If you mean negligence on behalf of the Governement, then you may have a point. The police are negligent for not protecting your home. The governement are negligent for having such crap policies.
Did you know - if you dig a hole in your garden and a robber falls in the hole and hurrts himself while trespassing on your property he can sue you aas you have not protected his safety by fencing off the hole. The same applies to a pond!
This is fact and can be found as an example in many English Law books.
2006-10-12 20:26:38 · answer #4 · answered by dpboorman 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not to clued up on my law terminolgy but if negligence has anything to do with neglect maybe the owner neglected to inform the burglar that as a result of trying to take his stuff a beating would follow.
Was the owner supposed to check with the burglar if he would kindly stop running away and wait for the police to come and take his freedom away or better yet if ask him "If I try and stop you will you resist and if so do you have any concealed weapons on or about your person so that I can be sure if I have to knock your **** out to avoid you trying to stick me."
Sometime the law makes no sense to me!!!
2006-10-09 02:21:54 · answer #5 · answered by mbaker_713 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can't see any negligence here.
The homeowner effected an arrest pursuant to s. 24 (4) or 24 (5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
He used reasonable force to detain the suspect, who by reason of running resisted arrest and became a danger to other members of the public.
During the arrest the suspect struggled and accidentally sustained minor injuries during his arrest. (Contributory negligence on the part of the robber).
UK law.
2006-10-10 00:25:01 · answer #6 · answered by LYN W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it's common assault. The law says the householder is only allowed to use minimum force to defend himself. If the robber was actually running away the householder was under no threat and should have simply reported it to the police. The only defence he could have is that he used minimum force while carrying out a citizens arrest.
2006-10-09 07:30:23 · answer #7 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No , Just a Bloody Good Result , hope the Houseolder gave him a Good Battering
2006-10-09 22:04:50 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely shouldn't be but who knows.i once heard of a person who was charged for negligence because he didn't have a beware of dog sign after a burgular was attacked by a dog in the house.
2006-10-09 02:11:42 · answer #9 · answered by my_mas0n 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is this question for real? The robber should get his *** whipped.I would chase his *** too if he put my family in danger.He should still be prosecuted for his actions as well.
2006-10-09 05:05:43 · answer #10 · answered by mommyofsix 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not negligence, it's assault (at least in the UK).
You are only allowed to use reasonable force in self-defence or to apprehend a criminal. If he was running away before the owner hit him, and it wasn't necessary to hit him to restrain him, then (whether you agree with his action or not) the householder has committed a crime.
2006-10-09 02:05:54 · answer #11 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋