Skip to main content
Law

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • 3
    I've accepted this answer, since it applies to the real-world case it's based on. I hope that doesn't stop people from answering with other jurisdictions. Commented yesterday
  • 2
    I expect that the answer would be the same in any common-law jurisdiction. A prank call cannot reasonably be expected to lead to the murder of unrelated third parties, so you'd probably have mens rea and proximate-causation problems preventing any liability from running to P, especially in the United States, where P would probably also have First Amendment protection. Commented yesterday
  • 4
    @bdb484 But if they didn't communicate this to P, the relative might bear some liability, but P wouldn't. Although the more steps you have in this Rube Goldberg murder, the less likely the expectation of a particular result is. Commented yesterday
  • 3
    @bdb484 That highlights that the culpability of F, while asked about in the question, is not (explicitly) treated in the answer. If F knew that R was prone to violence when provoked, could F be guilty even though the intermediary P is not? (Can the responsibility "skip over" P?) - The answer would be improved by explicitly addressing F's situation. Commented yesterday
  • 2
    @infinitezero Swatting is a very different scenario. If you'd like an analysis on that one, you're probably better off posting a separate question. Commented yesterday