If Whittington dies, what could Cheney be charged with?

[Agent_Foxtrot]

According to The New York Times this morning:

@The New York Times

The downturn in Mr. Whittington’s health significantly changed the tone of the White House reaction to the hunting accident. In Texas, Carlos Valdez, the district attorney in Kleberg County, said a fatality would immediately spur a new report from the local sheriff and, most likely, a grand jury investigation.

FWIW.

Adam

[CC]

Then in the absence of “assumed risk” doesn’t negligence or recklessness become a factor when someone is shot accidentally?

[ratatoskK]

The NY Times says:

Under the law, even an accidental hunting fatality can result in criminal charges. Mr. Cheney could be charged with negligence, defined as failing to understand the dangers involved and disregarding them, or recklessness, defined as understanding the dangers and disregarding them.

[Gfactor]

Assumption of the risk is normally a defense to a claim of negligence. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_200204/ai_n9036771; http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=expresso (pdf); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_risk; http://www.hhs.csus.edu/RLS/Faculty/TOlson/C5.pdf (pdf). In some states, assumption of risk is a complete defense. http://www2.cali.org/index.php?fuseaction=lessons.lessondetail&lid=709. A complete defense in this context means that if the defendant proves assumption of risk, the defendant cannot be held liable for negligence. The defendant would remain liable for conduct more serious (like reckless conduct). http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/lack012506.htm

As **Campion **has pointed out, in Texas, assumption of risk is subsumed into comparative negligence. http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/Tort%20Profiles/TX_Tort_Laws.html That means that it is not a complete defense, but the assumption of risk can be considered in determining the plaintiff’s share of the fault.

So in a sense you are right. In a jurisdiction where assumption of risk is a complete defense, the defendant can get a neglgence case dismissed based solely on assumption of risk.

Assuming that fails, or like in Texas, the jurisdiction does not recognize the doctrine as a complete defense, the plaintiff must prove three essential elements: (1) a legal duty owed by one party to another; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) damages proximately caused by that breach. http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/LawDecisionTX.jsp?id=1138023311397

The trial would probably focus on whether Cheney exercised ordinary care to avoid injuring others and also on whether Whittington excercised ordinary care to avoid getting shot in the face. :eek:

[Gfactor]

Here is a famous case involving an injury arising from quail hunting:
Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 C2d 80

[CC]

Cynical Gabe - I’m calling you on your name, and on your OP. Suppose there WAS malicious intent? Suppose it turned out that this fella had reneged on a promise to donate a certain amount of money and big Dick decided to accidentally pepper this guy? If that became public knowledge, that might change the nature of the DA’s prediliction to charge, wouldn’t it?

[CynicalGabe]

@CC

Cynical Gabe - I’m calling you on your name, and on your OP. Suppose there WAS malicious intent? Suppose it turned out that this fella had reneged on a promise to donate a certain amount of money and big Dick decided to accidentally pepper this guy? If that became public knowledge, that might change the nature of the DA’s prediliction to charge, wouldn’t it?

Nah. Not Cheney’s style. Cheney is too ‘behind-the-scene’ to do the dirty work himself. If your supposition were the case, I’d look for a accidental discharge by Cheney’s Secret Service detail.

[xash]

@lissener

Well, technically, it’s not illegal, since Cheney did it. See the memo.

That is not a factual answer. Such responses are not appreciated in GQ.

-xash
General Questions Moderator