The OP said that the circumstances were:
I guess it depends on how you interpret “nearly certain”. It’s not a credible defense that you didn’t intend to kill them if a fatal outcome is certain. At the extreme, if you force a naked person outside in Antarctica that’s no different than pushing them off a cliff.
IANAL, but wouldn’t a court need to determine what the proper Duty of Care is required of him in this scenario? There seems to a multi-factor test used in many jurisdictions to determine what is expected.
[My Emphasis]
He can be charged with Battery.
I was trying to help out and we know neither state or mind nor outcome. In the real world, determining outcome would be possible, so I filled in a detail to get us started.
Fine. If you want to go into inchoate crimes, it’s probably attempted murder in the second degree even if no harm actually comes to her because aliens come to her rescue right after she is put out into the cold but it depends on Joe’s state of mind.
He also “pushes her out the door and locks it.” I’m getting bored so although I could run through the categories of assault that might apply in this case I won’t. At the very least it’s third degree menacing, N.Y. Penal Law Sec. 120.15. Joe, by physical menace (e.g., pushing) intentionally placed Jane in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury, or physical injury. If after Jane was pushed out of the car, she thought, even for a moment, “I’m going to get hypothermia,” before the aliens came to her rescue, Joe is guilty.
I think there are a number of possible ways to interpret this whole scenario, and I think if it really happened then the legal outcome would very much depend on who was writing the reports and who was reading them. (i.e. I think the results would vary not just from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but also from day to day.)
But in the eyes of NY law don’t you need have had a ‘duty of care’ to the victim, eg you’re their parent, nurse, etc? This situation turned up in Law & Order: Criminal Intent (which was set in NY) when they at first thought they couldn’t prosecute the guy until they realized he worked as a private nurse for the victim and thus owed him a duty of care.
One could certainly argue that, by taking Jane to a remote location from which she has no means to return on her own, Joe has created a duty of care towards her. Duty of care isn’t limited just to formal relationships like that of a parent or nurse.
I’m saying that giving someone a lift, or inviting them into your property, doesn’t obligate you to continue doing that if there is a fight, and you no longer want them in your property. The weather outside is pretty irrelevant.
Do you really disagree? Do you think the law obliges you to allow someone (that you have no particular obligation to) to remain in your property no matter their behaviour, if it’s potentially cold outside?
The only thing that seems like it might be criminal is forcibly removing someone if there’s no imminent threat to you or your property, but I imagine that would vary due to jurisdiction.
Remind me not to pick fights with you when we’re on vacation…
2 & 3) I’m thinking civil suit, although the outcome isn’t a slam dunk by any means. If the guy paid for both flights and refused to honor her return flight home, I believe he would be liable for that because it is provable that the understanding from the beginning was that he was paying. If they went Dutch, or if he put her out but honored her return flight home, I’m not seeing what damages she could prove other than hurt pride.
That’s why many jurisdictions use a multifactor test (linked above) to determine where each situation falls. If you invited someone on a weekend, made all the arrangements to go to a secluded cabin with clear objective dangers outside, and then kick them out with no viable means to remain safe and secure; then you potentially have an obligation to ensure their safety at least at a minimal level.
By planning the trip, arranging for the transportation, and controlling the assumed shared lodging I would say the person in the OP has assumed some duty of care. Again, IANAL and have no real world experience with this sort of thing other than how it relates to first aid responders.
It doesn’t seem to me to change the scenario much to assume she dies in the case where OP says that’s ‘nearly certain’. Whereas in other two cases it seems we can assume she doesn’t die.
Anyway, 1) would seem to fit many reckless endangerment statutes which often don’t (I don’t know if they ever do) require that death or grievous harm actually result. Just that you deliberately or negligently do something you should know is likely to cause them. Don’t see how 1) could be other than a crime, even on the off chance ‘nearly certain’ doesn’t pan out in her actually dying.
The other two it seems would not be crimes unless for example ‘obviously there’s a risk’ panned out into death or grave harm. Maybe in legal theory it shouldn’t matter if the person was just exposed to a risk like hitching a ride, but I guess practically it would matter, especially if the media/public got wind of the incident.
But assuming the person did not suffer grave harm or death in a situation where most people wouldn’t judge it to have been likely, probably no prosecution, or even any police interest in the first place depending on degree.
You are moving the goalposts. The circumstance in the OP were not that it’s “potentially cold outside”. The were that “she’s nearly certain to die of exposure”.
If you ask her to leave, she must make prompt arrangements to do so. But your property rights don’t entitle you morally or legally to endanger somebody’s life.
If you really believe that it is morally acceptable to physically eject someone from your property when they present no threat to you and the conditions outside are life-threatening, I would honestly wonder if you are a psychopath. I don’t mean that as a personal insult, just genuinely bemused at the lack of empathy.
OP: Need more information, specifically could you tell me if Joe has access to a wood chipper?
Thanks.
As far as I can tell there is no implication that she/he doesn’t have a phone.
Presumably a woman couldn’t necessarily physically push a man out of the door and expect him to stay out. The whole premise is not likely to happen at all, among regular people. Most adults could/would just get through the bad weekend and go home and un-ass from the offending jerk. If the person in the cabin was seriously wanting to cause the death of the person, because, IDK he went psychotic all of a sudden, there are better ways to kill someone. And then there are crimes committed. You have a horse of a different color, and murder charges should be filed against the jerk.
It would make a good movie.
Steophan, apologies, my comment was a little over the top. Perhaps we are just talking at cross purposes about the actual circumstances in question.
No line has asked whether they crossed state linesfor their illicit tryst?
Another vote for reckless endangerment. That’s when you knowingly put somebody in a situation where it’s reasonably foreseeable that they can be seriously hurt. They don’t have to actually be hurt (nor do you have to show that there was an intent to cause injury); there just has to be a good chance of injury.
Scenarios 2 and 3 are simply civil disputes. The “risk” of wandering remote areas is greatly exaggerated (although probably a bit higher for women) but I’m guessing it’s not automatic enough to rise to the point of “foreseeable outcome” except perhaps some urban neighbourhoods.
Scenario 1 - depend how well dressed the person would be when kicked out, the distance to main highway, the volume of traffic, etc. If you are wearing appropriate winter attire for the current conditions - boots, parka with hood, gloves, etc. - where’s the harm? If the person can walk 20 minutes and be on a main highway - where’s the harm? If it’s 8 hours, -10F and blowing, and no coat at all - it might as well be deliberate murder. I would not even argue manslaughter; in those conditions, death is inevitable and easily foreseeable. If you force someone into that condition, you are effectively forcing them to their death.
For any circumstances inbetween well, that’s why they have juries.
This isn’t a question of morally acceptable, it’s a question of legally allowable. Also, it’s not clear from the OP that they present no threat to you, as “a fight” could be anything from a minor disagreement to a serious physical assault, on either side.
Also, the OP specifies that the person being thrown out has all their belongings, so that will include (presumably) appropriate clothing and so on.
And I didn’t take the comment as over the top, so no apology necessary. However, thanks for offering it, hopefully the discussion can continue to be civil.
Just because I state that I don’t believe an action to be necessarily illegal doesn’t mean I advocate it, or would do it myself. However, if you are relying on someone else for shelter, transport, or whatever it’s pretty stupid behaviour to start a fight with them.
Basically, don’t go into a frozen wilderness with someone that you can’t trust to look after you, if you can’t look after yourself. Only do so if you can trust them no matter what you do, because ultimately they don’t owe you anything.