- Jun 13, 2010
- 40,459
- 24,518
He posted an infographic of what involuntary manslaughter is. It is pretty clear (and back up by the mere fact Petgrave was NOT charged) why it is NOT involuntary manslaughter. Look I get it, you're mad that this happened and mad that Johnson died. I am too. But that doesn't mean Petgrave is legally guilty of murder or manslaughter. The hill for a prosecutor to climb is pretty significant.He literally said he can't be charged because the act he was doing wasn't illegal. This "infographic" does not prove his point. What the hell is the matter with you people?
Here, let me help break a few things down for you. I'm not a lawyer but I do plenty of expert witness stuff so I've seen my fair share of court cases where "who is liable" is the crux of the case.
As the infographic, which is correct, the three elements required to establish involuntary manslaughter are:
1. Your act caused the death of another person (The act must directly lead to the death).
2. You acted without regard for human life, or it was inherently dangerous (The act must show a disregard for safety or be inherently dangerous).
3. You knew or should have known that the act endangered human life (There must be awareness or a reasonable expectation of the risk).
Did his act cause the death of Johnson? Yes. This part is fairly straightforward. Petgrave’s skate blade did directly caused Johnson’s death by cutting his neck immediately following the hit. Johnson had the puck when he collided with another player, causing him to fall, and Petgrave’s leg came up and hit him in the neck, and he subsequently bled out. So this does satisfy the first piece, however, causation alone isn’t enough for a manslaughter charge. As per the infographic and other definitions, the other elements must also be met, and the context of the act matter (whether or not they do to you).
Did Petgrave act "without regard for human life, or was the act inherently dangerous?" This is where the case begins to weaken for a prosecutor. For it to qualify, it must either demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life or be inherently dangerous beyond the accepted risks of the sport. Hockey is an inherently dangerous (or high-risk) sport because (in this context), players wear sharp blades on their feet and move at high speeds. Hit (deliberate) or other collisions (non-deliberate) and falls are common, and it's not inconceivable that skate blades can unintentionally make contact with other players, in fact, it's happened multiple times in the past where it's hit the neck. Past the neck, there have been multiple injuries where a skate blade has sliced a body part. So it's not THAT uncommon. Now most feel that Petgrave’s odd movement of raising his leg after the collision was a natural reaction to losing balance, not a deliberate or reckless act aimed at slicing Johnson's neck. Plain ol fact here is, you will NEVER be able to prove that intent.
Even claiming recklessness or negligence here is difficult because, in this context, it would require Petgrave to have acted with a blatant disregard for safety. A good example would be intentionally swinging his skate at Johnson’s neck or a diliberate hit from behind beyond the context of a normal hockey play (think Dale Hunter on Pierre Turgeon). Again, there’s no evidence of intent. You can even use the "reasonable person" standard. A "reasonable person" standard in hockey accepts that players may collide and that skate blades may cause injury. While rare, it's not out of the realm of possibilities. Next, Petgrave’s action wasn’t a deviation from standard play, it was just the unfortunate consequence of his speed, the contact, and the loss of balance. Now, if Petgrave had deliberately kicked Johnson or used his skate as a weapon (Happy Gilmore reference here), that would be inherently reckless and dangerous with clear intent. But the collision and subsequent skate contact were part of the flow of the game. Every time players step on the ice, there is an "assumption of risk", meaning players accept the inherent dangers of the sport, including accidental injuries as part of the normal flow of the game. Instances where this DOES NOT work, is seen in plays like McSorley on Brashar or Bertuzzi on Moore. I think this is where @Ihateblakecoleman is coming from with the "there was no negligent" act because hitting is indeed legal as is initiating the contact. Now if he ninja'd up and went in on a high kick targeting the neck, that's different.
The last part is, did Petgrave know (or should he have known) his act endangered human life? And this element requires that Petgrave either knew or should have reasonably known that his action posed a significant risk to Johnson’s life which again would be near impossible to prove in court. Unfortunately for you and fortunately for the court system, HF opinion from non-law-knowing people, does NOT count. All hockey players are aware that skate blades can cause injury (as I already went through). There’s no evidence that can be presented in court that proves Petgrave knew or should have known that his specific action would result in a fatal neck injury. It would be very reasonable to go back and have him say "well if knew THAT was going to happen, I wouldn't have done it". These types of hits/collisions happen all the time in hockey without catastrophic outcomes, and neck injuries, while possible, are rare even without mandatory neck guards at the time (the EIHL did not mandate them in 2023 after the incident). This very specific, highly unlikely, incredible infrequent outcome was not a foreseeable result of Petgrave’s movement in the heat of the game. At least not to a degree that would allow someone to be charged with invol manslaughter.
The last thing I'll say is about legal precedence and "reasonable expectation" in sports in general. In sports, the standard for what a player "should have known" can vary based on what the player is doing (thus being high contextual). Hockey players are expected to play hard, make split-second decisions, and hit opposing players with the puck. Pretty standard. The defense attorneys will successfully argue that Petgrave’s reaction to the collision was instinctive, not premeditated, and there’s no indication he could have reasonably anticipated that he would have sliced Johnson's jugular and then see him bleed out. Legal precedents in sports require a significant breach of the rules or even accepted norms to establish this element, which isn’t present here. Again, I noted McSorley, Bertuzzi, and Hunter as examples where you COULD see this. If one of those acts led to the death of the player, they could have be charged.
ETA: You can go through US and UK case laws where you can read more about liability for injury in sports. There have been cases in the past that would help you understand this better.
Hopefully that helps you a bit. This is not to say what happened isn't tragic. Just because he's not charged doesn't make the incident any better or worse. You can't look at this like Petgrave "got away with something".
