14

Recently I was looking over the definitions of the different types of homicides and I came across the term “homicide by misadventure.” This is when somebody accidentally kills somebody else while engaged in a legal activity and without any intent to cause harm.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find out whether it's illegal. It seems like it shouldn't be (after all, you're not trying to hurt anybody, being neglectful, or doing illegal stuff), but law can be weird sometimes.

Is Homicide by Misadventure illegal?

ShivCK
  • 771
  • 5
  • 15
In Hoc Signo
  • 1,199
  • 9
  • 24
  • 7
    The word misadventure in the context of a death is something I have only seen in detective stories set in the UK are you sure this is a thing in the US? – George White Apr 07 '22 at 21:17
  • 3
    @GeorgeWhite the word can also be found in news reports of coroners' verdicts, also in the UK. – phoog Apr 07 '22 at 23:59
  • 7
    Are you thinking perhaps of someone killed by walking into the path of a javelin after it has been thrown? In the UK, that's not homicide, it's death by misadventure. It may be different in the US: could you give a concrete example? – Andrew Leach Apr 08 '22 at 06:39
  • can't help it, sorry! The Eiger Sanction – uhoh Apr 10 '22 at 09:30

2 Answers2

23

“homicide by misadventure." . . . is when somebody accidentally kills somebody else while engaged in a legal activity and without any intent to cause harm.

There is a criminal offense sometimes called negligent homicide, and sometimes called involuntary manslaughter (in some jurisdictions this is limited to, for example, vehicular homicide and homicide caused with a deadly weapon or involving a child or vulnerable adult).

Where this offense is present, it requires a level of intent of at least "criminal negligence" which is roughly equivalent to "gross negligence" in civil lawsuits and is almost, but not quite recklessness.

But if the conduct causing the death involves merely ordinary negligence at a level providing a basis for a civil action for negligence, or only involves acts which unforeseeably cause death despite the fact that the person carrying out the act used the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances (in which case there is a basis for a civil lawsuit only in the rare circumstances where there is strict liability), this is not a crime.

Sometimes, however, the conduct involved may violate some other law (e.g. speeding or hunting after having already reached one's game kill limit) that is a lesser crime, even though it is not a homicide crime.

ohwilleke
  • 211,353
  • 14
  • 403
  • 716
  • Is your penultimate paragraph correct? It's kind of hard to parse, but you seem to be saying that "if the conduct causing the death involves [...] negligence at a level providing a basis for a civil action for negligence [...], this is not a crime". Should that not be "at a level not providing a basis for a civil action for negligence"? Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that as long as there was clear negligence, it was not a crime, which would imply that if there was no negligence then there would be a crime. Shouldn't that be the other way around? – terdon Apr 08 '22 at 09:23
  • 1
    @terdon Summary: gross negligence ~ criminal negligence, ordinary negligence ~ ???. Both basis for civil suite, only former for criminal, plus caveats. – Deduplicator Apr 08 '22 at 10:34
  • 1
    @terdon The sentence is if the conduct causing the death involves merely ordinary negligence at a level providing a basis for a civil action for negligence, or only involves acts which unforeseeably cause death despite the fact that the person carrying out the act used the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances** so the first clause in the or covers "ordinary negligence" (and as it is stated in this case there is no crime but there could be civil trial), the second clause covers "there was no negligence whatsoever". – GACy20 Apr 08 '22 at 10:37
  • 1
    Thanks, @GACy20, for some reason I had missed the merely on my first reading and that does help. I would still break that sentence up, but then I'm used to editing non-legalese. – terdon Apr 08 '22 at 11:36
-1

I can think of lots of examples I've seen where no charges were reported with the story. Although, I guess being not-illegal, and not being charged are not necessarily equivalent.

Go hunting, shoot an animal and bullet continues on killing someone behind the animal.

Fall or drop something that strikes someone below.

Driving and hit a pedestrian or cyclist who you cannot see (foggy/raining, they are wearing all black, in a turn, etc)

Suffocating someone with your body weight after intercourse. (I can't find a link to the story, I think I saw it on 1000 Ways to Die)

RPostWVU
  • 1
  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Apr 11 '22 at 12:12