I’d think it depends on the facts of the case. If the State gets a conviction for criminal negligence then it would seem plausible that successful federal charges would have been justified.
Think in terms of manslaughter generally and negligent homicide.
See here for a discussion on the issue of unpublished opinions. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/unpub_opinions_1.pdf
In the matter of intent, do see the Model Penal code which many states have adopted. In order of culpability there are:
- Purposely . If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or cause the result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, he is aware of the circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.
- Knowingly . If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. If the element involves a result, he is practically certain that the result will occur. Further, if the element involves knowledge of the existence of a particular fact, it is satisfied if he is aware of a high probability of the existence of that fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
- Recklessly . A person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.
- Negligently . A person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.
Additionally, there is strict liability. Most traffic offenses fall under this category. Possibly including DUI vehicular manslaughter.
The context here is the Federal Seaman’s Manslaughter Statute so how does thinking in terms of manslaughter generally and negligent homicide apply in this situation?
As far as state law is concerned, a SMS like statute is irrelevant. There’s nothing magical about about a boat in this case. Negligence or recklessness is the issue.
Not invoking magic, has to do with the wording of the statute.
From Wikipedia
Unlike common law manslaughter, which requires a mens rea or mental state of gross negligence or heat of passion in absence of malice, this statute requires only simple negligence — a breach of duty to perform an act or omission in violation of a standard of care.
It WAS the SMS. Clearly not applicable as the court held.
State law however, still has a conceivable path to conviction Missouri Involuntary Manslaughter Law The applicable mens rea Preliminary Provisions of the Missouri Criminal Code
But perhaps I’m misunderstanding. Are we speculating as to the reason why the feds tripped over their own feet? In that case…
I’m not saying the state doesn’t have a path.
The point I was making is, leaving aside for a moment the facts of the case, getting a criminal conviction in the state courts is going to be more difficult and therefore less likely.
To get a conviction in state court the prosecution must prove gross negligence.
To prove gross negligence the prosecutor is going to have to prove that the duck boat operator was reckless. Obviously, that more difficult.
1 Like
Perhaps the chances of getting a criminal convection is the reason the federal prosecutors decided it was worthwhile giving the federal courts a try in the first place even knowing about past rulings with regards to jurisdiction.
MO. 5. A person “acts with criminal negligence” or is criminally negligent when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
Gross negligence (not defined here and not part of the Missouri framework) is not the standard. It is criminal negligence as defined above.
Is it a slightly lower standard? Maybe. But it seems razor thin. Here’s a law review article that is helpful: https://www.joneswalker.com/images/content/1/1/v2/1153/258.pdf
I don’t see a problem in state court. The bigger issue is facing elected “Judge Goober” and elected “County Prosecutor Gomer”. Might as well jump straight to sentencing.
1 Like
Once again, the captain is the lone target although he was operating under the direction of a manager who had better access to weather reports. The fact that admiralty law doesn’t apply will deny the vessel’s owners the limited liability protection from civil suits. Unfortunately for claimants the owners are now probably broke and it remains to be seen if they had applicable insurance coverage.
1 Like
That doesn’t appear to be the case.
From the Maritime Executive article;
Judge Rush’s recommendation also covers charges against two Ride the Ducks Branson managers who were on duty at the time of the casualty.
Also, again from Wikipedia:
The 1904 fire aboard PS General Slocum resulted in another Act in 1905 (33 Stat. 1023) to make executive officers of corporate-owned steamboats criminally liable, and also added the term “neglect” to the list of actionable offenses
The article doesn’t say if the charges against the managers were the same as the ones against the captain.
This appears sound. Now, I think that the feds were trying to cleanup the embarrassment for the CG and the Department of Homeland Security. A state court wouldn’t give a damn about the agencies’ feelings or their respective images.
Thanks, speedread right past that in the article.Still, those guys don’t have any money to provide compensation.
First of all, the Feds should defer to the State prosecutors when something happens on a small “boat” on a landlocked lake. Between the drug cartels, the terrorists, crooked politicians, crooked lobbyists, crooked government contractors, crooked bankers, and so on, the Feds have plenty of better things to do.
You mean these?
Most countries using English common law do not differentiate.
Between Seamen and other professions. Gross or Criminal Negligence can lead in many jurisdictions to a charge of manslaughter, or similar charge.
Simple Negligence not sufficient for a conviction.
I’ve no idea how negligence is applied in Countries using, Napoleonic Code or similar. I doubt they would see a reason for one group or profession to be treated differently.
So the Seaman’s Manslaughter act is quite unusual. Single it out Seamen to be held to a much lower standard.
Why should Seamen be different? Other than by an accident of history. steam ships boats predating steam trains or other transport systems.
The funny as in strange aspect of this Law.
It goes back to river steamboats which presumably operated on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers back in the day of steam boats.
So clearly the Seaman’s Negligence act would apply elsewhere in Missouri.Just not this lake. Presumably because there is no connection to the River system.
A fortunate quirk for theses particular seamen.
Weird.
1 Like
That’s why it may be an unconstitutional law. It treats people differently for engaging in the same negligent conduct based upon occupation without any rational basis.
Ordinary or simple negligence that causes death is not a crime for anyone, except seamen (that is, captains, and sometimes vessel owners and managers).
1 Like
The history of the Steamboat Act is worth looking into.