gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care
/GROHS dee-vee-AY-shun from a REE-zuh-nuh-bul STAN-durd of KAIR/·phrase
Also known as:gross deviations from a reasonable standard of care · gross negligence · criminal negligence
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct amounting to criminal negligence. It is a substantial departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances that creates a high risk of death or serious bodily harm.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Forklift Collision During Live Stunt
Quentin approved a live warehouse stunt with high-speed forklifts and no barriers despite an engineer's written warning of probable death. A forklift struck and killed contestant Louis. The gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care supported involuntary manslaughter liability on a criminal-negligence theory.
Unlicensed High-Speed Operation
Leah ran unauthorized securities sales sessions that violated felony regulations. When confronted she shoved Silas into a glass partition that shattered and caused fatal lacerations. The shove met the gross deviation standard and supported involuntary manslaughter under the criminal-negligence theory.
Bernice took a charter vessel out despite a severe-weather forecast and an inoperable backup radio. The vessel suffered major damage requiring an expensive rescue. Her choice constituted a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care and exposed her to liability for the resulting losses.
Ignored Safety Warnings on Set
Guillermo directed a film crew to operate heavy equipment without required permits or spotters after receiving explicit safety reports. A crew member was killed when a machine crossed into a marked lane. The decision reflected a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care and supported an involuntary-manslaughter charge.
Seizure While Driving
Genevieve knew she suffered from epilepsy yet drove without medication and suffered a seizure that caused a fatal collision. The decision to operate the vehicle created the high risk of death required for criminal negligence. Her conduct met the gross deviation standard and supported involuntary manslaughter.
People v. Decina2 N.Y.2d 133, 157 N.Y.S.2d 558, 138 N.E.2d 799 (1956)
On March 14, 1955, at about 3:30 p.m., defendant Emil A. Decina was driving his car alone in a northerly direction on Delaware Avenue in Buffalo when the vehicle swerved left across the center line and then sharply right, mounting the easterly curb at high speed.
The car struck six schoolgirls walking on the sidewalk. Three children aged 6 to 12 were killed on the scene and a fourth child died two days later in the hospital from injuries sustained in the accident. After the collision, the car continued, struck a lamppost, and crashed through a brick wall into a grocery store, where Decina was found stooped over the wheel appearing dazed.
Decina was taken to E. J. Meyer Memorial Hospital at 5:30 p.m. A pink slip from the Buffalo Police Department accompanied him, requesting examination and noting the fatal accident and the recommendation of the District Attorney. There, Dr. Wechter, a resident physician, spoke with Decina in the presence of a police guard and obtained his medical history of epilepsy, including prior treatment, operations, seizures, and medication.
Decina was indicted for violating section 1053-a of the Penal Law. Following conviction after his demurrer was overruled, the Appellate Division reversed on the law and granted a new trial on the ground that the transactions with Dr. Wechter were privileged, while sustaining the overruling of the demurrer. Both the People and the defendant appealed.
George posted repeated messages that a reasonable person would view as true threats of violence. The posts caused the recipient severe emotional distress and required protective measures. The pattern reflected a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care and supported criminal liability on a negligence theory.
Elonis v. United States575 U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015)
Anthony Douglas Elonis was an active user of the social networking website Facebook. In May 2010, Elonis’s wife of nearly seven years left him, taking with her their two young children. Elonis began listening to more violent music and posting self-styled rap lyrics inspired by the music under the pseudonym Tone Dougie.
The lyrics Elonis posted included graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. This material was often interspersed with disclaimers that the lyrics were fictitious with no intentional resemblance to real persons. Elonis posted a photograph of himself holding a toy knife against a co-worker’s neck with the caption I wish, after which the chief of park security fired him.
Elonis posted an adaptation of a satirical sketch in which he substituted his wife for the President. The posting described firing a mortar launcher at her house from the cornfield behind it. After viewing some of Elonis’s posts, his wife felt extremely afraid for her life and obtained a three-year protection-from-abuse order against him.
Elonis posted about the order and referenced having enough explosives to take care of the State Police and the Sheriff’s Department. Elonis posted an entry stating he had enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. After park security informed the FBI, agents monitored Elonis’s Facebook activity and visited his house. Elonis then posted Little Agent Lady describing slitting an FBI agent’s throat and detonating a bomb.
A grand jury indicted Elonis on five counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §875(c). At trial Elonis requested a jury instruction that the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat. The District Court instead instructed the jury that a statement is a true threat when a defendant intentionally makes a statement in a context wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury. The jury convicted Elonis on four of the five counts. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
How does gross deviation differ from ordinary civil negligence?
Criminal negligence requires a substantially greater departure from reasonable conduct than the negligence that supports civil liability. The deviation must create a high risk of death or serious bodily harm.
Supporting sources
Does the gross deviation standard apply only to homicide charges?
The standard defines criminal negligence for involuntary manslaughter at common law. It also appears in other offenses that require proof of recklessness or criminal negligence.
Supporting sources
What separates gross deviation from depraved-heart murder?
Depraved-heart murder requires reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Gross deviation for manslaughter involves a lower degree of risk and indifference.
Supporting sources
342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288.
…extensive inroads upon the requirement of intention, however, are offenses of negligence, such as involuntary manslaughter or criminal negligence and the whole range of crimes arising from omission of duty. Cf. Commonwealth v. Welansky , 316 Mass. 383, 55 N.E. 2d 902 (1944). : Holmes, The Common Law, considers intent in the…
TortsIntentional torts · Harms to the person and property interests (assault, battery, false imprisonment, infliction of mental distress, trespass to land and chattels, conversion)UBEIntermediate