Accidental manslaughter on a death row convict

Scenario: E. Veel Dud is a death row convict. He killed 40 babies on a giant blender. He is a terrible, terrible human being and he deserves to die, according to the law of the United States. He manages to escape jail on his final day. He starts to escape the city. On the same time a driver is answering a text on his phone. E. Veel Dud is crossing the street on a hurry so he won’t be seen by the cops. The driver is figuring out his phone’s keyboard and… THUD. E. Veel Dud flies over the car with a gracious double back flip and falls into the asphault, smashing his skull open on a messy brainy bloody splatter. The driver, therefore, killed the convict that would die on a matter of hours. What happens now to the driver? Is HE convicted of manslaughter? He… did the state’s work, anyway, and the person he killed is really really really bad. So…?

A charge of vehicular manslaughter would seem to lie. The deceased was a convict, not an outlaw.

This seems like a variation of the hypothetical of the suicidal person who jumps off a building and is shot by a second man just as he passes in front of the second man’s window. The perpetrator has of committed manslaugther/murder (depending on intent), regardless of the fact the victim was going to die in any event.

Whether the OP’s perp would be charged in real life is a different matter.

On a giant bender, or in a giant blender?

I am picturing a giant blender in the shape of a giant Klein Bottle, so all those babies on it would simultaneously be in it.

Outside of self-defense, its illegal for an individual to kill people. The person being bad or a on death row is irrelevant.

Just because a person’s been sentenced to death doesn’t mean anyone can legally kill them (although I have a pitch for a reality show). A driver who accidentally kills somebody with their car is not acting as a legal representative of the state carrying out an execution.

The first couple of frozen margaritas would be a lil troublesome. Thanks for the Klein bottle info, cool stuff.

Now, the inevitable civil suit his family (the Dud clan) brings. . .

From a legal perspective, I believe you are correct. But I think the intent issue does change it morally. The person who was trying to kill someone else definitely still committed murder, as it’s the intent that counts. But the whole point of accidental manslaughter is the lack of intent–it’s just about the results. And I cannot argue that the results here are equally bad to if he had killed an innocent person. The actual action by the driver is the same action many people do all the time.

I actually see the legal principle as being more of a deterrent-based punishment. By punishing the guy who does kill someone, you are trying to scare other people into thinking they might kill someone too. The actual proper punishment for the action is somewhere in between the nothing most people get (or the small fine they get if caught) and the sentence for accidental homicide that those who do kill someone get.

It won’t be much of a lawsuit. The Dud family will have to show that they suffered from some financial loss due to E’s death. And being as he was scheduled to die in the immediate future, that’s going to be difficult.

On the other hand, we have this case in Australia in which the mob family of a notorious hit man is apparently going to get compensation due to the fact that he was murdered while in prison.

Apparently the mob family are suffering some distress due to him getting whacked; and this makes them eligible for a state payout.

Apparently also, the families of his numerous victims are not eligible; presumably they are not suffering any distress resulting from the murder of their family members.

Of course. The state was responsible for his care and protection at the time and, if they failed in that responsibility, it was foreseeable that his family would suffer. (It’s possibly relevant that he was murdered because he was an informer for the state.)

The newspaper article that you link to doesn’t support that last point. Did you make it up, or have you some other cite for it?

The only relevance of the victims status/demeanor/history to the case is if that status implies contributor behaviour. IF the victim was known to jump onto the road and explose himself, then that could be relevant.
In this case, E. Veel Dud is crossing the street on a hurry so he won’t be seen by the cops… So yes there is Contributory behaviour…
I feel I just did someones homework. It was a simple test that you could find the relevant legal principle among the distractions.

What if it turns out the Dud family, through marriage, has ties with the Skammer clan. They bring forward a reality show producer who is willing to testify that he was going to film the Duds family the day of the execution, culminating with their witnessing of his death. He agreed to pay $7.2 million, but now there won’t be a show.

The prosecutor isn’t going to throw the book at the driver, the optics wouldn’t be good. If the driver has a clean record he’ll probably get to plead out without jail time. The prosecutor wants to avoid trying the guy who took care of the problem after the state screwed up. A jury might nulify in a case like this if it does go to trial.

Wrongful death statutes generally allow recovery (depending on the relationship between the decedent and the plaintiff) for loss of companionship, consortium and the like, not just economic damages.

You get an F.

But Dud was already sentenced to be executed a few hours later. So how much companionship would he have potentially provided if he hadn’t been killed by the car? The family will be able to argue that they could have been present at his execution and had a chance to say their goodbyes, which they didn’t get when he died out on the street. A jury might feel that has some value but I don’t see it being set all that high. In addition, the defense will be able to argue that Dud himself was partially responsible for denying his family that opportunity by his escape so any award would be reduced.

It’s one thing to say you were going to make a reality show and another thing to provide evidence that you actually were going to do it. Can the Skammers show that this producer had a film crew hired and ready?

Hell, they’re the Skammers. In exchange for his split of the $$ I’ll bet he could show whatever was necessary.:stuck_out_tongue: