R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354

Fanny Stone, who suffered from anorexia nervosa, moved into a household occupied by her brother Stone, his partner Dobinson and others. Both defendants had limited abilities and led disorganised lives, but they knew Fanny was seriously unwell. They attempted some care: they brought her food, washed her and contacted a doctor. Their efforts were inadequate, however, and they did not secure effective medical attention as her condition deteriorated. Fanny became bedridden in squalid conditions and died from toxaemia caused by infected pressure sores, prolonged immobility and lack of food. Stone and Dobinson were convicted of manslaughter based on their failure to care for her and obtain help. They appealed, arguing that no legal duty existed and that the evidence did not establish the necessary gross negligence.

Had Stone and Dobinson assumed a duty of care towards Fanny, and was their failure to obtain effective assistance sufficiently gross to support manslaughter by omission?

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. By accepting Fanny into the home and undertaking aspects of her care, the defendants had assumed responsibility for her welfare. That undertaking created a duty to take reasonable steps, particularly to summon appropriate medical help when her condition became grave. Their own limitations were relevant to what could reasonably be expected, but did not remove the duty or excuse doing nothing effective. The jury was entitled to find that the failure was grossly negligent and caused Fanny's death. The case did not impose liability merely because Stone was her brother; the assumed responsibility and the defendants' awareness of her obvious need were central.

A person who voluntarily assumes responsibility for another who is unable to care for themselves may owe a criminal duty to take reasonable steps for that person's welfare. A culpable omission causing death can amount to gross negligence manslaughter where the breach is exceptionally serious and deserving of criminal punishment.

The case is a leading example of liability for omissions based on an assumption of care. It is often studied alongside duties arising from relationships, as in R v Gibbins and Proctor, contracts and the creation of danger in R v Miller. The defendants' modest attempts to assist did not prevent the jury finding an undertaking and a gross breach. Modern gross negligence manslaughter analysis is structured by R v Adomako, but Stone and Dobinson remains important for identifying the preliminary duty. It also shows that personal capacity informs reasonable steps without automatically eliminating responsibility.