Death by misadventure-what does it mean?

[John]

If a pedestrian is knocked over by a car and later dies as a result of
the injuries and the coroner gives a verdict of death by misadventure,
what does this mean/imply? I have read that "this verdict is
generally unpopular with coroners currently as it is not very
different from accidental death"

What is the difference between death by misadventure and accidental
death? How would a death by misadventure versus accidental death
verdict affect any compensation payout?

Is there any form of appeal for a coroners verdict?

[John]

I have read at http://www.gn.apc.org/inquest/sgi.html "There is no
legal distinction between accident and misadventure"

Also R-v- HM Coroner for Portsmouth ex p. Anderson, QBD [1989] 2 All
ER 604.
It was established in this case that there is no distinction between
the verdicts of accidental death and death by misadventure in
coroners' inquests.

Does this mean they are both the same thing? And what does the case
listed actually mean? Does this mean that either of the two coroners
verdicts should not make any difference to a compensation claim? And
why is death by misadventure verdict unpopular with coroners?

This death by misadventure of a pedestrian crossing the road, does
this mean the coroner is inferring the pedestrian had some degree of
blame and not just solely the drivers fault? Or is crossing the road
regarded as a known risk of some significance, surely not?

How could a coroner complete an inquest and reach a verdict of death
by misadventure of a pedestrian knocked over if there was a pending
motoring prosecution of the driver of careless driving? Surely a
coroner has to wait until after any court case to reach the verdict?

According to the dictionary death by misadventure means death due to
accident without crime or negligence. Yet the police are prosecuting
the driver for careless driving. The police must think there is both
crime and negligence. So how can the coroner reach a verdict of
misadventure without the court case being concluded?

Thanks for your help in this matter

[Jethro]

> Does this mean they are both the same thing? And what does the case
> listed actually mean? Does this mean that either of the two coroners
> verdicts should not make any difference to a compensation claim? And
> why is death by misadventure verdict unpopular with coroners?
>
> This death by misadventure of a pedestrian crossing the road, does
> this mean the coroner is inferring the pedestrian had some degree of
> blame and not just solely the drivers fault? Or is crossing the road
> regarded as a known risk of some significance, surely not?
>
> How could a coroner complete an inquest and reach a verdict of death
> by misadventure of a pedestrian knocked over if there was a pending
> motoring prosecution of the driver of careless driving? Surely a
> coroner has to wait until after any court case to reach the verdict?
>
> According to the dictionary death by misadventure means death due to
> accident without crime or negligence. Yet the police are prosecuting
> the driver for careless driving. The police must think there is both
> crime and negligence. So how can the coroner reach a verdict of
> misadventure without the court case being concluded?

I had always imagined that DBM was reserved for bungee jumpers, and drunks
who take a risk and die as a result.

To further complicate things I could envisage a situation where a person is
blown off a bridge and drowns (Accidental death), and someone dives in to
rescue them and drowns (DBM).

ISTM from memory that there is only a loose correlation between a coroners
verdict and the criminal/civil process.

The original purpose of a coroner ("crowner") was to determine whether a
dead person's estate could be seized by the crown. The more recent
involvement in the criminal law was an afterthought (which is why some US
states have no equivalent for a coroner).

HTH HAND

Jethro (IANAL)

[Jon Rouse]

Jethro wrote in message
<997344633.23399.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...

>
>I had always imagined that DBM was reserved for bungee jumpers, and drunks
>who take a risk and die as a result.

Yes, a friend of mine decided to go swimming when drunk, and he drowned. The
situation was not the same as if he had tripped and fallen in the river.

--
The views expressed are my own, and may not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.

[Percy Picacity]

Anthony R. Gold <tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:01h4ntcu2eq8m4e9q...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 03:21:50 +0100, John <n...@email.here> wrote:
>
snip

>> Yet the police are prosecuting
>> the driver for careless driving. The police must think there is both
>> crime and negligence. So how can the coroner reach a verdict of
>> misadventure without the court case being concluded?
>

> The coroner's verdict does not conflict with, let alone make improper,
> the prosecution of the driver.
>
> Regards,

Careless driving is not proof of negligent responsibility for the death
(though if it was on a pedestrian crossing it probably will be
negligence, as there is an established duty to avoid running over people
on pedestrian crossings - in fact I could imagine someone being found
negligent in this respect without being guilty of any criminal driving
offence). IANAL, but this seems pretty obvious.

--
Percy Picacity

[Richard Miller]

In article <uvp3nt4l672viaor9...@4ax.com>, John
<n...@email.here> writes

>I have read at http://www.gn.apc.org/inquest/sgi.html "There is no
>legal distinction between accident and misadventure"

Not true.

>
>Also R-v- HM Coroner for Portsmouth ex p. Anderson, QBD [1989] 2 All
>ER 604.
>It was established in this case that there is no distinction between
>the verdicts of accidental death and death by misadventure in
>coroners' inquests.

That is wrong. There is a very clear distinction, as Anthony posted,
which is that a misadventure verdict means that the deceased contributed
in some way to his own death. In a case of accidental death, there is no
contribution from the deceased.

>
>Does this mean they are both the same thing? And what does the case
>listed actually mean? Does this mean that either of the two coroners
>verdicts should not make any difference to a compensation claim? And
>why is death by misadventure verdict unpopular with coroners?

I have no idea.

>
>This death by misadventure of a pedestrian crossing the road, does
>this mean the coroner is inferring the pedestrian had some degree of
>blame and not just solely the drivers fault?

Yes.

> Or is crossing the road
>regarded as a known risk of some significance, surely not?

Not if done properly at a proper crossing or in a safe place after
following all the normal requirements of safe procedure.

>
>How could a coroner complete an inquest and reach a verdict of death
>by misadventure of a pedestrian knocked over if there was a pending
>motoring prosecution of the driver of careless driving? Surely a
>coroner has to wait until after any court case to reach the verdict?

No, he is not required to. On the contrary, it is often a coroner's
verdict that leads to the decision to prosecute.

>
>
>According to the dictionary death by misadventure means death due to
>accident without crime or negligence.

Without crime, yes. Perhaps the dictionary was referring to without
negligence on the part of someone else, but with negligence on the part
of the deceased. I don't know; and if that is what it meant, I don't
agree with the definition. Negligence by one person does not exclude the
possibility of contributing negligence by someone else as well.

> Yet the police are prosecuting
>the driver for careless driving. The police must think there is both
>crime and negligence.

But they are not prosecuting for causing death by dangerous driving.

> So how can the coroner reach a verdict of
>misadventure without the court case being concluded?

Clue: don't use an ordinary English dictionary to interpret legal
terminology that has been refined through centuries of Court cases.

>
>Thanks for your help in this matter

--
Richard Miller

[kezze...@gmail.com]

My mum was run over by a speeding police car in 1984 and the coronary verdict was misadventure despite witnes statement the police was corrupt still waiting for answer Kerry

[Fredxxx]

From Collins dictionary.

misadventure:

noun

an unlucky event; misfortune
(law) accidental death not due to crime or negligence

Are you still waiting for an answer from the police? What was the
witness statement?

Generally, if the accident was in the road, ie. not the pavement, then I
don't see any other verdict.

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

There are many occasions where the verdict of a Coroner's court has been set aside by the High Court. However, there is generally no need to have an appeals procedure for the Coroners court since its verdict centres on cause of death and its purpose is not to seek to apportion blame and a coroners verdict does not indemnify anyone against subsequent prosecution for a criminal offence.

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

Forgot!

Misadventure involves an element of responsibility for one's own death. For instance if a pedestrian tries to take advantage of a gap in traffic miscalculates, and is struck and killed as a result then that is misadventure. If the same pedestrian stumbled and fell as he crossed and was killed as a result, then that would be accidental death.

[Radicalised Ripsa Victim]

///////////////

Perhaps more accurately should read thus,,

an unlucky event; misfortune (law) accidental death (cause not known) to
be due to crime or negligence..

Suspected unprovable.. No answers..?

I do of course have my personal view..

What is the coroner going to do with no answers,, acceptable answers..
or publishable answers,,

An unlucky event might possibly be meeting upwith a pair of killers on the
way home from the pub,, orn a speeding police car iffen you like..



//

I am of course thinking of James Gibbons from Hahneman Court sunderland,,
found dead on the road in early 1979,, i do not have the acctual date,,
I read a report in the sunderland paper,,

Quite unfathomable ,,that a couple may have come to kill and make it look
like an accident,,

Make a tape, record his voice..

They did,, it happened,, why,,

Im JAck..Dats Why..

hodyafiggerthatin sevenyninesunderland,

The coroner held his verdict over ,, to give police more time to
investigate,
he was unhappy with the circumstances of this mans death
because of the presence of inconsistent marks on his body,,

He was not happy but what other could he pronounce,,

I doant know that he did in the end mind you..


How to access coroners records 78/79 Sunderland

can it be done ..

I doant know..

Dussney mattter ..

I know,,

//////