Odger's English Common Law

HOMICIDE OR CAUSING DEATH. 267
parlance we should say that one man had caused the death
of another, but in which, the law would place a different
construction on the facts.
The prisoner's act must be the direct cause of the death.
If it be only one of several causes, which together bring about
the death, it will be deemed too remote.
Thus where a man seized by the hah- a woman, who was nursing a
child of four and a half years old, and struck her in such a manner as to
frighten the child and bring on convulsions from which it ultimately died,
Denman, J., directed the jury that, if they were of opinion that the assault
was the direct cause of the infant's death, it would be manslaughter, but
that should they consider that the death was not caused by the assault
but by a combination of other circumstances, it would be accidental death
only. The jury found that the assault was the direct cause of the death
and convicted the prisoner of manslaughter. 1
Where a fireman absented himself from his post and therefore failed to
send the engine to a fire, which resulted in a loss of life, it was held that
he had not caused the death. 2
So, too, trustees appointed to repair roads
under a local Act were held not to have caused the death of a man, who
lost his life in consequence of the roads. being out of repair through the
neglect of the trustees. 8
It is immaterial that any act or negligence on the part of
the deceased was one of the circumstances which led up to
his own death, if the direct cause of the death was the act of
the prisoner. But if the deceased was a free agent in the
matter and his death was the direct result of some voluntary
and spontaneous act of his own, neither instigated nor com-
pelled by the prisoner, the deceased has caused his own death,
although something said or done by the prisoner may have
led up to the fatal act or even suggested it to him. 4
Thus in the well-known case of R. v. Swindall and Osborne, 6 the prisoners
were racing each other in their carts along a road at night and ran over
the deceased, who was lying drunk in the road. But this fact did not
afford them any defence, when charged with causing his death. In his
summing up, Pollock, C. B., said : " The prisoners are charged with con-
tributing to the death of the deceased by their negligence and improper
conduct. If they did so, it matters not whether he was deaf, or drunk, or
i R. v. Towers (1874), 12 Cox, 630.
2 Cf. R. v. Hilton (1837), 2 Lewin, 214 ; R. v. Lowe (1850), 3 C. & K. 123.
3 R. v. Pooock (1851), 17 Q. B. 34, 39.
1 R. v. Martin (1827), 3 C. & P. 211.
5 (1846), 2 C. 4 K. 230 ; 2 Cox, 141. And see R. v. Jones (1870), 11 Cox, 544 ;
R. v. Kew (1872), 12 Cox, 356 ;
Blenhintopv. Ogden, [1898] 1 Q. B. 783.