The news on page 103 documents the tragedy of the Big Dig ceiling cave-in. the tunnel ceiling collapsed before completion killing one person. The collapse was attributed to the use of fast-drying glue to secure ceiling bolts. It was contented that the supplier of the bolts failed to warn the constructors that the glue was not appropriate for over head use. It was further stated that the supplier was aware that the bolts were loosening even before the entire ceiling was completed. They thus knew that there was a likelihood that all the bolts would come off after sometime yet they failed to raise a red flag on the issue. The Transportation Safety Board opined that but for the actions of the supplier; the ceiling would not have collapsed.
Criminal liability arises in this tragedy as it caused the death of one person. This death can be classified as manslaughter as it does not amount to murder. Since it was not intended that the woman dies from the collapse, the crime may be termed as involuntary manslaughter. However, since the supplier is a juristic person and cannot be criminally liable as a normal person, then the crime becomes corporate manslaughter. This is because the conduct of the supplier led to the woman’s death thus is culpable conduct which is what corporate manslaughter relates to.
The basis of the charge may be premised on several principles or doctrines of criminal law. One, under the respondeat superior doctrine, where a servant in the course of their duty commits a crime, then the master may be held liable. In this case, the servant is the employees of the Supplier Company while the company is the master. The omission by the employees to highlight the dangers of using the glue is culpable and thus a crime. Since they were acting on behalf of the company, then it may be held liable for their actions.
Two, under the collective knowledge doctrine, all the actions and rational aspects of employees of a company are summed up and if they amount to a crime, the company may be held liable. As previously stated, the actions of the employees being culpable, criminal liability would rightly be ascribed to the Supplier Company. Third, under the identification theory, where the controlling mind of a corporate entity, essentially the directors, is guilty of culpable conduct, then the corporate may be criminally liable (Schmalleger et. al, 2010). The net effect is that the Supplier Company may rightly be held criminally liable for the collapsed ceiling and the death of the woman.
References
Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E. & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal law today (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning. Print.
