Commonwealth v. Welansky (Sup Ct of MA,1944)
Facts: Welansky owned nightclub. One night was in hospital and bartender directed 16 yo boy to light a bulb near a palm tree. The tree caught fire and the fire spread. The nightclub lights went out and many of the exits were either stuck, blocked, or locked. Employees and 492 patrons died
Procedural Historv: D, his bro James, and employee were indicted for manslaughter. Ct said they were under a legal duty to their invitees to use reasonable care to keep the premises safe for use and in reckless disregard of such duty, and of the probable harmful consequences of their failure to perform said duty, each of them "willfully, wantonly, and recklessly neglect and fail to fulfill their said legal duty and obligation." D found guilty. Commonwealth based case on involuntary manslaughter through wanton or reckless conduct. Since fire in a public place is an ever-present danger, it was enough to prove death resulted from D's wanton or reckless disregard of the safety of patrons in event of a fire from any cause.
Issue: Can the D still be found guilty of manslaughter even though he didn't make an affirmative act and didn't realize the grave danger of his omission?
Rule: Usually wanton or reckless conduct consists of an affirmative act. But whereas in the present case there is a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited to premises which the D controls, wanton or reckless conduct may consist of an intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences to them or of their right to care. "Even if a particular D is so stupid or heedless that he did not realize the grave danger, he cannot escape the imputation of wanton or reckless conduct in his dangerous act or omission, if an ordinary normal man under the circumstances would have realized the gravity or the danger. A man may be reckless within the meaning of the law although he himself thought he was careful."
Holding: Yes, the D can still be found guilty of manslaughter.
Reasoning: 1. knowing facts that would cause a reasonable man to know the danger is equivalent to knowing the danger 2. judge charged jury correctly 3. an exit and fire doors were called for by the plans approved by the building dpt and had not been provided when D last had knowledge of the premises 4. the violation of such statute is not negligence per se but sometimes is evidence of negligence
Disposition: Affirmed