Illegal act leads to an unrelated death. Negligence?

[choie]

Sorry for the lousy title, I wasn’t sure how to word this.

For a story I’m writing, I need to know whether a character could be considered criminally negligent due to his illegal behavior that leads to someone else’s death – even though the death is pretty much unrelated and unforeseen by the main character.

Here’s the setup: a doctor writes a prescription for a controlled substance (a barbiturate) on behalf of a relative who’s addicted to said drugs. Later, without the doctor’s knowledge, the relative’s spouse ends up using the drugs to poison the relative.

Can the doctor be charged with anything other than falsifying a prescription? Perhaps criminal negligence? Accessory?

On the one hand I’m dubious that charges would be likely, since the doctor would hardly be expected to know the meds would be used by a third party.

On the other hand, since he knew the prescription wasn’t valid, he also knew these dangerous drugs were going to be used illegitimately no matter who had 'em. This does kinda make him seem liable, although that’s hardly a legal opinion.

Would the situation be any different if it was a gunshop owner giving a hunting rifle to a friend who lacks a license, thinking that the friend plans to use it for hunting – but then the friend’s wife ends up using the rifle in a murder?

In both cases we have a potentially lethal item that does have legitimate, legal purposes – and in both cases they’re being distributed illegally. So would either the gunshop owner or doctor be liable, either in a criminal or civil case?

Hope this makes some sense… Anyone have any thoughts?

[TokyoBayer]

IANAL, IANYL and I didn’t even read the Cliff notes to law school, so you’ll need someone else to give a definative answer.

However, from the Columbine High School Massacre

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, 1998 in private sales from individual(s).[35] Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor,[36] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[37]

[Otto]

@choie

Here’s the setup: a doctor writes a prescription for a controlled substance (a barbiturate) on behalf of a relative who’s addicted to said drugs. Later, without the doctor’s knowledge, the relative’s spouse ends up using the drugs to poison the relative…On the other hand, since he knew the prescription wasn’t valid, he also knew these dangerous drugs were going to be used illegitimately no matter who had 'em.

How does the doctor “know” that the prescription to the addicted relative is “illegitimate”?

@choie

Would the situation be any different if it was a gunshop owner giving a hunting rifle to a friend who lacks a license, thinking that the friend plans to use it for hunting – but then the friend’s wife ends up using the rifle in a murder?

Is there any legal requirement in any jurisdiction that someone buying a “hunting rifle” must have a hunting license?

[Acsenray]

Choie, you might want to look up the term “proximate cause,” which is a key to negligence law in the United States. (The key case is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad.) Generally speaking, an intervening intentional act breaks the chain of cause.

[choie]

Rock on! Thanks guys for the comments so far.

@Otto

How does the doctor “know” that the prescription to the addicted relative is “illegitimate”?

Because the medication is properly prescribed for a specific medical purpose – migraines – and the doctor knows the relative a) doesn’t get migraines that often, and b) is using them at a far greater rate than a normal user would. The doctor knowingly enabled his relative’s addiction.

@Otto

Is there any legal requirement in any jurisdiction that someone buying a “hunting rifle” must have a hunting license?

This shows you how little I know about guns. I assumed a rifle requried a gun license of some kind. No? I was just trying to come up with an analogous example where a potentially lethal item with a specific legal usage might be used for deadly purposes, without the knowledge of the party of the first part, who gave it unlawfully but without intent to cause someone’s death. The hunting thing was the only analogy I could think of.

(Ugh, I know guns are a hot topic and I’m trying to stay away from any debate… let me tiptoe away from that topic pleeeease!)

Many thanks for the case cites TokyoPlayer and ascenray, especially to the latter regarding proximate cause. In truth I don’t want the doctor character to be liable for the murder caused by his dumbass behavior, but I want to cause problems for him by others who think he is ethically or morally responsible. (The doctor’s actually a sympathetic character these days, but his past is coming back to haunt him.)

Anyway if anyone can add more legal thoughts I’d be extremely grateful!

[Otto]

@choie

Because the medication is properly prescribed for a specific medical purpose – migraines – and the doctor knows the relative a) doesn’t get migraines that often, and b) is using them at a far greater rate than a normal user would. The doctor knowingly enabled his relative’s addiction.

I would think this then becomes an ethics question rather than a legal one. As far as I know there’s no law against prescribing an addict the medication he’s addicted to, but there are huge ethical issues involved. The FDA and federal law governs most or all law relating to a doctor’s ability to write prescriptions as far as I know, but there may be state law too. Even if the prescription is “illegitimate” it’s not necessarily “illegal.”

@choie

I assumed a rifle requried a gun license of some kind. No?

A hunting license is permission from the state for a person to hunt. Basically the hunter pays the state for the right to kill a deer or some ducks or something. The hunting license itself is not a “gun license” (some hunters only bow-hunt, for instance, and may not even own a firearm) and has nothing to do with gun ownership. The license or permit to own the hunting rifle is completely separate from hunting.

[choie]

Hi Otto! Thanks for clearing up my confusion on the gun issue. Okay, forget I mentioned it. Maybe a more apt analogy would’ve been … I dunno, a car rental agent allowing an underage person to rent a car, and then the underage person’s friend uses it to kill someone. Eh, screw the analogy idea altogether. I’m not helping things.

I’m pretty sure that prescription fraud is a crime for the doctor as well as the patient, if the doctor can be proven to have been aware of the misuse of controlled substances. Here’s one case, from the DEA website:

Dr. Paul Maynard, age 55, of Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, was arrested on September 18, 2003 after being indicted on one-hundred-seventy (170) counts of knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully distributing and dispensing Schedule II and III controlled substances (Oxycontin, Percodan, and Vicodin ES). According to the Indictment, Dr. Maynard distributed and dispensed controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose and beyond the bounds of acceptable medical practice. The Indictment also gave notice of forfeiture to Dr. Maynard of his medical building, his license to practice medicine, and his DEA registration number.

On February 15, 2007, a Jury for the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands, convicted Dr. Maynard on four of the counts. Dr. Maynard was remanded to prison after the verdict where he currently is awaiting sentencing. A preliminary Order of Forfeiture has been filed and shall become final at the time of sentencing.

Of course, this is on a much grander scale than my humble doctor character, and he/his attorney could claim that the meds had a medical purpose. But things won’t be going that far.

In any event, the main issue is whether there might believably be a threat of action, civil or criminal, regarding the murder stemming from his distribution of the narcotics to his relative.

From Lexis/Nexis:

Concurrent Causes

When two or more negligent acts contribute to a plaintiff’s injuries, those acts are called “concurrent causes.” For example, a pedestrian stands on a street corner. A bicycle rider negligently runs into the pedestrian, knocking him into the street. As a truck swerves to avoid the pedestrian, a piano falls from the truck and onto the pedestrian, injuring him. Before the accident, the truck driver negligently failed to secure the piano to the truck. The negligent acts of the bicycle rider and the truck driver are concurrent causes because both acts contributed to the pedestrian’s injuries.

When there are concurrent causes, both negligent actors will be liable for the plaintiff’s injury only if each negligent act was a substantial factor in causing the injury. In the above example, the pedestrian’s injury would not have occurred if not for the negligent acts of both the bicycle rider and the truck driver. Therefore, the negligent acts of both the bicycle rider and the truck driver were substantial factors in causing the pedestrian’s injury, and both of them would be liable for damages in the pedestrian’s personal injury action.

Intervening and Superseding Causes

An “intervening cause” or “superseding cause” breaks the chain of causation between a negligent act and a plaintiff’s injury. For example, a truck driver negligently crashes into a house. The impact breaks a window but does not injure the homeowner. Later that night, a burglar crawls through the broken window and assaults the homeowner. The homeowner files a personal injury action against the truck driver to recover for the injuries inflicted by the burglar. In this case, the burglar’s conduct was not a foreseeable result of the truck driver’s negligence. Therefore, the burglar’s conduct is an intervening or superseding cause. The truck driver’s negligence is not the proximate cause of the homeowner’s injuries, so the homeowner cannot recover damages from the truck driver in a personal injury action.

So using the above definitions, I do think there is at least an arguable civil case here. I’m sure a defense attorney would counter this by saying that there was an intervening cause – the relative’s spouse heretofore unknown murderous intentions – that couldn’t have been foreseen.

I think a jury would reasonably conclude that the doctor couldn’t have known someone would use these narcotics to intentionally cause a death.

Anyone who knows this legal stuff: Am I reading this correctly?