Case BriefCrim law: the actus reus requirement1/26/15Identity of CaseCommonwealth v. Pestinikas, 617 A.2d 1339 (Pa. Super 1992)Page 173 of the casebookSummary of FactsDecedent Joseph Kly first met the defendants when he arranged for his funeral. They made an oral contract to care for him, provide water, food, and medications for him until his death for $300 a week (hedidn’t want to live with his son anymore for reasons unknown). Instead of caring for him in their home as arranged, they put him on a screened in porch at their country home and didn’t feed him, cancelled nursing services, and mislead his family about his location for abouta month while they drained his banking account. He died of starvation and dehydration, and was dead for a few days before he was found. Procedural HistoryPestinikas were sued for violation of a duty of care. TC convicted, appellate court upheld conviction. Statement of the IssueDid the Pestinikas gain a duty of care toward the decedent? HoldingTheir oral contract was enforceable, therefore they took upon themselves a duty of care which they violated maliciously, consciously, and intentionally. ReasoningThe defendants do not naturally owe Kly a duty of care, and can’t naturally be convicted of abandoning him unless they had taken one on. By finding that the contract was enforceable, the court was able to imply this duty. Evaluation That seems like an unnecessarily difficult way to get to duty. Surely they imprisoned him. But wrongful imprisonment is a tort, and we wanted to get them under a criminal statute so that they could be imprisoned (or
View Full Document
Unlocking...