4

The original Trolley Problem is stated as:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

  • Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
  • Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

The legal aspects of which is addressed in this Law.SE question.

The fat man variant is:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

What does the law say if I push the fat man off the bridge? Does this act change the legal answer to the original Trolley Problem?

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80
Allure
  • 4,352
  • 4
  • 30
  • 57

1 Answers1

3

The current position of the law in is that pushing the man would result in a murder conviction.

Legally, the post is asking about the strength of the the defence of necessity

This is the principle that: "[in] situations of such overwhelming urgency [...] a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law"

In England & Wales:

  • Courts have consistently rejected killing an innocent person as justifiable to save others (see: R v Dudley and Stephens [1884]).
  • Medical necessity is the only established exception to the above (see: Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2000]])

As this scenario is not one of medical necessity, case law suggests that it would result in a murder conviction. However, due to the complexity of such a scenario, new precedent would likely need to be established. This answer, as would be the case in any attempt to answer this question, is only useful insofar as it tells you the current position of the law. If such a scenario arises, it will certainly not end with an analysis as simplistic as applying the above two cases.

In general, murder cannot be committed by omission. Although there are exceptions (eg a special relationship - see: R v Gibbins and Proctor [1918]), this is not the focus of the question. Therefore, not pushing the man would not generally give rise to any criminal liability.

In this way, the situation is not fundamentally different from the normal trolley problem.

Summary: In E&W the defence of necessity rarely succeeds, and when charges of murder are raised, the prospects of succeeding with such a defence are even lower. However: due to the ethical complexities around the scenario, the courts would likely spend time deliberating whether this constitutes a new exception.

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80