There are many cases in which the victim of a crime may take an action that actually causes the victim more harm than the original person intended.  However, many courts take an approach that tests whether the type of injury suffered is foreseeable, or normal, given the crime.  For example, if the victim refuses medical attention that would have prevented further injuries or death, the defendant could still be liable for all injuries suffered.

What Happens If A Victim Refuses Medical Attention?

Assuming someone who is injured refuses medical attention, but later suffers for not treating those injuries, the original aggressor could still be charged with the crime.  For example, if Red shoot Hugh four times (they bullets mostly just graze him, but he has lost a fair amount of blood), and is rushed to the hospital.  While in the hospital, Hugh refuses to get a blood transfusion because it is against his religious beliefs.  Hugh dies.  Courts would generally rule that Hugh’s refusal to allow the transaction would not relieve Red of liability for the death of Hugh (whereas he would have faced a smaller criminal charge if Hugh would have had the transfusion).

The only caveat to this is when there is a civil action by Hugh’s offspring against Red.  Generally, a person is under a duty to “mitigate his damages.”  This means that the person must attempt to lessen their potential damages.  Therefore, Hugh’s offspring probably would not get as much compensation for Hugh’s death as they would have had Hugh died before being brought to the hospital.

What If The Victim Exposes Themselves To Danger?

Sometimes a victim will try to avoid the danger posed by the defendant, but other times a victim may sometimes expose themselves to danger with the defendant’s urging or encouragement.  If the victim is injured because of the defendant’s urging, the defendant might be charged with a crime.  For example, Tony, Veronica and Dalton agree to play “Russian Roulette.”  Each takes a turn spinning the chamber containing one bullet and pulling the trigger of the gun.  Tony and Veronica take a turn, and the gun does not fire, Dalton picks up the gun and is hesitant to pull the trigger.  Tony and Veronica keep egging Dalton on, Dalton pulls the trigger and the gun fires, killing Dalton.  Tony and Veronica may be convicted of manslaughter.  The court would likely rule that their conduct recklessly endangered Dalton’s life by playing Russian Roulette and encouraging Dalton.

A similar situation occurs when the victim and defendant participate in a drag race together and the victim is injured or killed.  The court bases this on the fact that the defendant “helped create the dangerous situation, and was a part of it.”

Do you think it is fair that a defendant is charged with manslaughter if the victim participates in the same “game?”