Commonwealth v. Feinberg case brief

 

• Commonwealth v Feinberg- he sold industrial strength sterno knowing that people were inclined to drink it to get high. There was an extreme warning. He sold some cans and V drank them and died. ∆ held liable for manslaughter.
  • V acted on their on volition and consented to drink the sterno.
  • The fact that they bought and drank the sterno showed that they were addicts. Should that make a difference? How about the fact that they were poor?
    • Would it matter if he had never sold sterno before? The addicts might have thought that they new sterno was the same as what he sold before….
• Russian roulette cases- does it matter who was in the room or who held the gun, and how does it contrast w/ drag racing cases where if your partner dies it is not homicide….