criminal-law
Shared responsibility in criminal law
<p>Let's consider this case.</p>

<p>John and Bill works together for apartment reparation in 10th floor. John unintentionally put big heavy hammer near the open window, after 5 minutes Bill accidentally (unintentionally) hit this hammer and it fall down from 10th floor and killed somebody.</p>

<p>Both of them went to court. Let's say we have ideal case. Everybody accept this story. There is no doubt that it was accident. John confirm, yes, I unintentionally put hammer near windows, Bill confirm yes, I accidentally (unintentionally) hit hammer and it fall down.</p>

<p>Theoretically if John would not put this hammer near the window, Bill would not drop it down and nobody would be killed. In this sense John is guilty.</p>

<p>From other side if Bill would be more careful and would not drop this hammer also nobody would not be killed. In this sense Bill is guilty.</p>

<p>My question: If it is classified as "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Negligent homicide</a>", What normal judge in Western World will decide about this case? Who is guilty and who will go to jail?
John, Bill or both?</p>

<p>If both are guilty, will they have the same responsibility, like 5 years in jail for john and 5 years in jail for Bill or Bill will get more?</p>

<p>Update:</p>

<p>If it is difficult with criminal-law, let's say hammer fall down to the car and let's assume nobody has insurance. Who will pay for the car reparation in this case? John, Bill or both? and if both, each will pay 50% or different?</p>

<p>Assume that this happened in Washington state. Under <a href="http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.32&amp;full=true#9A.32.070" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9A.32.070</a>, the crime of second degree manslaughter occurs</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.08.010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 9A.08.010(d)</a> defines criminal negligence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when
  he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act
  may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk
  constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
  reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the claim that John unintentionally put the hammer near the window. If he put the hammer on the floor below the window, then Bill can't unintentionally hit the hammer and cause it to fly out the window. Let's suppose you mean that John put the hammer on the ledge of the open window <em>unthinkingly</em>. Bill doesn't see the hammer and accidentally knocks it off the ledge when he backs up and his butt hits the hammer. Only John is criminally negligent: he is negligent, and any reasonable person would know that it was a risky thing to do. John did an act knowingly and voluntarily, just not having an evil intent. John can't plead that he happened to have no clue about the effect of falling hammers – the law doesn't care about his personal knowledge, it cares about what a reasonable person would know. Now, if Bill was tossing a tennis ball at the hammer to see if the ball would bounce back into the room, or some other lame reason, <em>then</em> Bill is also criminally negligent. </p>

<p>The point is that saying "I didn't intend this particular outcome" is not relevant. You don't have to have any bad intent at all, when it comes to negligent homicide. You just have to be sufficiently incautious, so that you have not just deviated from the standard of care that everybody owes everybody else, you have done so grossly. This is a judgment made by the fact-finders, and depends on the totality of circumstances.</p>

<p>Criminal penalties aren't "divided". In Washington, they could both get 10 years and $20,000 – though the judge could decide that John deserves a bigger penalty because he is a bigger bonehead.</p>

<p>It is doubtful this would be a criminal matter unless you could establish some level of intent to harm someone, or you would have to show that at least Bill or John had to <em>know</em> their actions could or would lead to harm and willfully disregarded it.</p>

<p>That's not to say there couldn't be a <em>civil</em> suit by the survivors of the victim, in which case vicarious liability could leave both John and Bill to share responsibility for the accident.</p>
