







NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.
Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.
Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
The Riverside County District Attorney's office
declines to file charges......
MICHAEL JEANDRON
Public Information Officer
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
Indio: 760.393.3232
Riverside: 951.955.9215
MichaelJeandron@rivcoda.org
We have declined to file charges in the death of Anyah Gossinger. The decision
was based on the fact that the evidence did not reach the threshold required
by law to warrant criminal charges.
The law distinguishes between ‘ordinary negligence,’ which is the standard used in
most civil contexts, and the higher standard of ‘criminal negligence,’ which would
apply in a criminal case such as this.
The law defines criminal negligence as follows:
Criminal negligence
involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or
mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high
risk of death or great bodily harm; and
2. A reasonable person would have known that
acting in that way would create such a risk.
A careful review of the evidence presented by the Desert Hot Springs Police
Department shows that the actions of Anyah’s caregivers did not rise to the higher
level of criminal negligence as required by the law. The evidence shows that
Anyah’s caregiver was watching Anyah and another special-needs boy while the boy’s
caregiver left briefly to use the restroom. Anyah was in the pool wearing ‘floaties.’
The boy began to climb out of the pool onto a narrow raised tile platform. A fall from
this platform could have injured the boy. Anyah’s caregiver went to the side of the
pool to restrain the boy. While her attention was directed to the boy, Anyah apparently
slipped out of her floaties and sank to the bottom of the pool.
A third caregiver then entered the pool area with her child and noticed Anyah at the
bottom of the pool. Anyah was immediately pulled out of the water and Cardiopulmonary
Resuscitation (CPR) was administered. While no one knows exactly, it is
estimated that Anyah was under water for approximately sixty seconds.
The CPR was initially ineffective because Anyah had regurgitated some food that
blocked her airway. Several minutes passed until the blockage was discovered and
the food was cleared out. Her lungs received no air during this period. CPR was then
continued until medical help arrived.
While it appears that the caregivers may have made several mistakes in judgment
and in supervision of Anyah, these mistakes do not rise to the level of recklessness
that is required to support a criminal charge in this case.
Under English law, where a person causes death through extreme carelessness or incompetence, gross negligence is required. While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions. The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession and cause death. In R v Bateman 1925 Cr. App R. 8 the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements: