Bob dies because Eve chose not to be vaccinated, is this a crime?

Question

Bob is a clinically vulnerable adult that has a weak immune system. Eve is one of Bob's friends. Eve has been offered a vaccine for a widely spread and contagious disease that has the potential to kill Bob if he caught it from Eve. Eve does not take this vaccine, as she does not think it will affect her and it goes against her beliefs/morals.

Unfortunately, Eve catches this disease and then passes it on (transmits) it to Bob. As a result, Bob becomes ill and dies. Could Eve be tried for murder, manslaughter, or some other crime, as she chose not to be vaccinated against a disease that she (in-directly) passed on to Bob and killed him?

Answer 1

As a result, Bob becomes ill and dies. Could Eve be tried for Murder, Manslaughter, or some other crime, as she chose not to be vaccinated against a disease that she (in-directly) passed on to Bob and killed him?

There are basically two distinct issues here. What is the duty? And if a duty was breached, what intent is necessary to breach it?

There is not a legal duty to be vaccinated. There is a duty to use reasonable care not to hurt others. The duty not to hurt others could be satisfied by not seeing Bob in person, by wearing a mask around Bob or by having other non-transmission means available, in addition to being vaccinated. But Eve didn't do any of these things.

We don't know if Eve had any reason to think that she presented a risk of infection to Bob because she could have passed the virus to him while she was asymptomatic.

We also know, by the assumption of the question, that Eve was the source of the infection. But, in real life, proving the source of an infection beyond a reasonable doubt is very challenging or impossible. This must be established for any homicide crime.

There is no indication that Eve knew she was transmitting the virus to Bob, or that Eve intended to transmit the virus to Bob (if she intentionally spat in Bob's face intending to infect him that would be a different matter). At most, her conduct was reckless, but if she was asymptotic and has no idea that she was doing something that was actually putting Bob at risk, her intent could be as slight as negligent (for tort law purposes only) or criminally grossly negligent.

Since she lacked the necessary intent to commit murder (i.e. either an intention to kill, or an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm), she could not be guilty of the offense of murder.

There are three types of voluntary manslaughter in England, none of which apply here: "There are three types of voluntary manslaughter: that resulting from loss of self-control; that resulting from statutorily defined diminished responsibility; and killing in perseverance of a suicide pact."

So, this leaves involuntary manslaughter as the most serious possible homicide offense. Involuntary manslaughter could encompass either reckless conduct (i.e. "the unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as an act which must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting therefrom albeit not serious harm") and is usually in furtherance of some other criminal offense, or in the case of "gross negligence manslaughter", negligent conduct that is a far greater level of wrongdoing than the negligence that would suffice for civil tort liability.

Gross negligence manslaughter is the most plausible charge and is itself a hard call that involves judgement and discretion on the part of the trier of fact (i.e. the judge in a bench trial, and the jury in a jury trial) that is exercised on a case by case basis considering all of the circumstances. Also, to be clear, the wrongful act in a gross negligence involuntary manslaughter case would be transmitting the virus (which could have been prevented multiple ways) and not failing to get vaccinated itself.

Answer 2

For the sake of argumentation, let me use the law from germany here.

Under the condition, that the illness is a tracked infection under §6 Infektionsschutzgesetz (law for the protection from infections), then they are legally obliged to isolate and enter quarantine. That means, the mere act of meeting Bob would be a violation of law. Among the illnesses on that list are Cholera, Yellow Fever, Variola vera and Yersinia pestis - smallpox and plague. But SARS-COV-2 is also on that list.

By purposefully meeting anyone while being under the mandated quarantine or isolation, Eve not only is to be fined for that (violating the quarantine) but also can be liable for damage to Bob as, according to the law, transmission is foreseeable. However, we can't a priori assume the necessary murder criteria in Germany, so it is possibly better described as Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge (StGB §227 - infliction of bodily harm resulting in death) or negligent homicide (StGB §222). The latter is punishable with up to 5 years or fine, the former with at least 3 years normally and 1 to 10 in lesser cases. However, there might be grounds for trying to go for other unlawful killing statutes, based on the exact pattern.