Criminal Liability for Failure to Act: Individual Duty of Care in a Corporate Context

Federal Court of Cassation, Section IV, in re ARGAÑARAZ, Hugo Eduardo et. al.” (May 19, 2017.)

The proceedings stemmed from an accident in the City of Córdoba´s Airport, in May 2005, as a private airplane made its final approach for landing. A few meters before touching ground, in very low visibility, the aircraft struck a radio antenna and crashed, killing 6 of the 9 persons on board. According to official experts, the accident had three fundamental causes: structural deficiencies of the antenna, insufficient marking and lighting, and flaws in the weather-monitoring station.

The case progressed to oral trial with three individuals facing charges of negligent manslaughter, on the grounds that the deficiencies in question fell within their scope of authority. Among the defendants was the airport manager, an employee in the private company to which the government outsourced the administration of the national airport system.

Following the debate, the acting Federal Oral Tribunal acquitted all three defendants, on the understanding that there was no link between the alleged omissions and the fatal accident. Both the district attorney and the private prosecution challenged the decision, and the Federal Court of Cassation ruled that the airport manager was indeed criminally liable.

In so deciding, the Court reviewed the essential standards for ascribing criminal liability for failure to act, in a context of overlapping roles and responsibilities. In this sense, the Court highlighted the requisite elements for a successful prosecution: (i) situation of danger, (ii) position of duty requiring affirmative action from the defendant, (iii) failure to act in furtherance of said duty, (iv) harmful result, and (v) probability link between omission and result, to the degree that acting according to relevant duties would have at least reduced the probability of occurrence.

On this basis, the Court noted that the manager’s scope of authority did in fact include the duty to ensure a working weather observation station, such that approaching aircraft could be immediately warned of any sudden changes in the weather. In this case, however, the contractor company had blocked the view from the monitoring station with unauthorized structural reforms. Thus, the Court concluded that these deficiencies made it impossible to warn the pilot of and therefore amounted to a material contribution to the accident, within the meaning of applicable standards.   

This ruling is a valuable precedent at a federal level, insofar as it provides a detailed account of the rules and standards for ascribing criminal liability on a single individual, in the context of an organization with interlocked spheres of authority.