Also known as: malum prohibitum · mala prohibita · mala in se
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An offense that is wrongful solely because positive law prohibits it rather than because the conduct is inherently immoral or evil. Courts apply the label to distinguish regulatory violations from common-law crimes when determining the scope of the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule.
Cole chained the only emergency exit at South Retail to stop thefts even after the owner warned of fire risks. When faulty wiring started a blaze, janitor Samantha could not escape and died of smoke inhalation. The court treats the fire-code violation as malum prohibitum yet holds Cole liable for manslaughter because the death was a natural consequence of the blocked exit.
Leo ordered concrete saws to run past the 7 p.m. curfew at the Apex Construction site. The sudden noise startled resident Nora, who fell down her stairs and died. Because the death was an unusual result of the noise ordinance violation, the court finds no manslaughter liability under the majority rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nina flew a consumer drone indoors at the NovaTech conference in violation of a posted ordinance. The drone struck a light fixture that fell and killed attendee Carlos. The court convicts her of manslaughter because the crowded setting made serious injury a foreseeable result of the regulatory breach.
Riley ordered workers to burn debris near a public road despite a county ordinance banning open burning. Thick smoke drifted across traffic, a driver swerved, and cyclist Jordan was struck and killed. The court finds involuntary manslaughter because the collision was a natural consequence of the prohibited conduct.
Victor directed staff to stack chairs in front of the rear exit at Harbor Dining to speed table turnover despite a fire inspector's warning. During a grease fire patron Paula tripped over the chairs, was trampled, and died. The court holds the malum prohibitum violation supports manslaughter because the death was foreseeable.
Professor Lang disabled the tamper alarm and propped open an emergency exit at Brayton University to allow after-hours access. An intruder entered and fatally shot a student. The court finds possible manslaughter liability because the death was a foreseeable result of the security-rule violation.
Most courts require that the resulting death be a foreseeable or natural consequence of the unlawful conduct. The rule prevents automatic liability for regulatory violations whose risks are remote.
Supporting sources
Courts usually classify common-law crimes as malum in se and statutory or regulatory offenses as malum prohibitum, though the label can turn on whether the conduct is inherently immoral.
Supporting sources
No. The majority rule demands proof that the death was a foreseeable result of the specific violation. Unforeseeable outcomes do not trigger liability.
Supporting sources
…abandonment of the ingredient of intent, not merely with considerations of expediency in obtaining convictions, nor with the malum prohibitum classification of the crime, but with the peculiar nature and quality of the offense. We referred to “. . . a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of…