Davis v. Commonwealth
1985 Va. LEXIS 270, 335 S.E.2d 375, 230 Va. 201 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied contract creating a legal duty of care can arise when an individual voluntarily assumes responsibility for a helpless person and receives financial benefits in return. A criminally negligent breach of this duty that proximately causes death constitutes involuntary manslaughter.
Facts:
- Mary B. Davis lived with her mother, Emily B. Carter, who was senile, totally disabled, and required constant care, including being fed and having her diapers changed.
- Davis informed multiple people that she was responsible for the total care of Carter, making it her full-time occupation.
- Davis was the designated representative to receive Carter's $310 per month in social security benefits, which she used to pay for all household expenses.
- Davis also acted as Carter's authorized representative for food stamps, which provided Davis with additional monthly benefits and exempted her from employment registration requirements.
- On November 29, 1983, paramedics found Carter in an unheated room on a cold day, while Davis's upstairs bedroom contained an operable stove and a supply of firewood.
- Carter was admitted to the hospital with a body temperature of 80 degrees, severe malnutrition, dehydration, bilateral pneumonia, a skull laceration, and multiple rib fractures.
- Carter died on December 2, 1983. A forensic pathologist determined the causes of death to be pneumonia and freezing due to cold exposure, combined with a chronic state of starvation.
- The pathologist testified that Carter's physical condition indicated she had consumed no food for at least 30 days and no liquids for at least two days.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary B. Davis was tried for the involuntary manslaughter of her mother, Emily B. Carter, in a Virginia trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Davis guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Davis to 10 years in the penitentiary.
- Davis (appellant) appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, challenging the findings that she had a legal duty of care and that she was criminally negligent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who voluntarily assumes the total care of a helpless family member, and in return receives financial benefits such as free housing and the use of the family member's income, have a legal duty of care, the criminally negligent breach of which can result in a conviction for involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, J.
Yes. A person who voluntarily assumes care for a helpless individual and receives material benefits in return creates a legal duty of care, and a criminally negligent breach of that duty resulting in death is sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that a legal duty can arise from an implied contract, not just a moral obligation. Here, Davis accepted sole responsibility for Carter's total care, and in return, Carter provided Davis with free housing and shared her social security and food stamp benefits. This arrangement constituted an implied contract, establishing a legal duty. The court found that Davis breached this duty through criminal negligence, which it defined as conduct of a reckless, wanton, or flagrant nature indicating a callous disregard for human life. The scientific evidence that Carter had been starved for over 30 days and left to freeze in an unheated room was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that Davis's neglect was so gross and wanton as to show a callous disregard for Carter's life, proximately causing her death.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a legal duty of care, the breach of which can lead to criminal homicide charges, can be founded upon an implied contract. The court's decision expands the basis for criminal liability for omissions beyond formally recognized relationships (like parent-child) to informal caregiving arrangements where the caregiver receives a material benefit. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to charge caregivers who neglect vulnerable adults under their care, particularly when there is a financial entanglement. The ruling emphasizes that once such a duty is voluntarily assumed and coupled with a benefit, the caregiver cannot abandon it without facing potential criminal consequences.
