R v Willoughby [2005] 1 WLR 1880
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:36 UTC
A man burned down his pub so as to avoid paying the mortgage and a person died.
He was convicted of manslaughter after the judge directed that on account of his ownership the jury may infer that he had a duty of care. He appealed that this was a misdirection.
The CA conceded this, but said that where there was evidence suggesting a duty of care, it was for the jury to decide if it existed.
The fact that he stood to gain (financially) from burning the pub down meant he had a duty not to kill in the process.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Caldwell
Arson involves intentionally setting fire to property (actus reus) with the required intent (mens rea), which can be either recklessness or intent to damage or destroy property. Arson endangering lif...
R v Goodfellow
Manslaughter is a legal charge that involves the unlawful killing of another person, and it intersects with charges related to arson causing death by reckless conduct. The intentional act of setting...
Wheat v Lacon
Defendant was a company with a pub and the owners, L, lived above the pub. L let a room to Plaintiff. The handrail finished before the end of the stairs and Plaintiff fell down and died. Plaintiff’s...
Ogwo v Taylor
In negligence involving the occupier's liability, the duty of care is fundamental. The duty of care extends to various parties, including firemen who respond to fires. In such situations, occupiers m...
Goldman v Hargrave
In Australia, particularly in Western Australia, legal implications arise in negligence leading to fires, especially those initiated accidentally by lightning. The scope of an occupier's duty of care...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.