Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: The philosopher's trolley problem

What an interesting question. It's not really the type of question this site is for, but I'll have a go at it anyway.

Prosecutors have discretion as to whether someone should be charged and, if so, which of the potentially applicable charges should be filed. The facts you describe are sufficient basis for a charge of involuntary manslaughter, but I doubt that any prosecutor would actually file charges under such circumstances.

Even if the man you describe were to be charged, I'm not at all sure he would be convicted. His intent was to prevent harm and not to cause it, and he evidently did not cause the trolley to go out of control in the first place, so his actions probably don't amount to manslaughter. Probably.

Even if he were charged, I think he would have a legitimate defense argument based on necessity. The law recognizes necessity as a defense in many instances where a greater harm would have occurred but for the defendant's action. If the diverted train had only caused property damage then the necessity argument would be a clear winner. Where a person dies the result is less clear, but the argument would still be reasonable.

Necessity would also be a defense to any civil action brought by the deceased's family or estate. When a defendant causes harm in order to protect others from a more catastrophic harm, his action is considered a "public necessity" and he is not liable. (If he is only protecting himself it is a "private necessity" and he is liable for compensatory damages but not for punitives.)

The law also provides a general protection for good samaritans who act in order to rescue others. Legally, whoever sets the problem in motion (here this would be whoever let the trolley get away) is liable for any harm caused by reasonable rescue efforts, and the rescuer is not. Thus, if I injure someone and the ambulance taking him to the hospital hits someone else, I am responsible for both people's injuries while the ambulance driver isn't. The question here would be whether sacrificing one bystander in order to save several is "reasonable." I think it is, but I'm not certain the law would agree.