Title: Gross negligence
Content:  Gross negligence is used as a standard for criminal law, for example, under manslaughter in English law. Under common law, criminal negligence is defined as a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. This is a higher standard than ordinary negligence under tort law. In the U.K., a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter requires that the prosecutor prove the existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty by the defendant resulting in death, and a risk of death that would be obvious to a reasonable prudent person in the position of the defendant.
Title: Fault (law)
Content:  The defendant can also be grossly negligent, which is the mens rea required by involuntary manslaughter offences, such as seen in the case of R v Adomako (1994), where the defendant was held to be negligent as he had "breached a duty of care".
Title: Homicide in English law
Content:  Gross negligence manslaughter requires a much greater level of wrongdoing that the civil tort of negligence. It requires that the defendant owed a duty of care to the victim (it is for the judge to decide on which facts such a duty would be created). These rules are typically those of tort. For example, in R v Pittwood, the defendant was put under a duty to act on account of being contractually obliged to close the gates at a railway crossing. Similar duties include those of a doctor of his patients, an electrician over a householder he has done work for, parents over their children, and, developed more recently, a police officer over persons he arrests. Included, however, are those of a criminal enterprise, which would not attract 
Title: Manslaughter in English law
Content:  In our judgment unless an identified individual's conduct, characterisable as gross criminal negligence, can be attributed to the company, the company is not, in the present state of the common law, liable for manslaughter." Civil negligence rules are not apt to confer criminal liability; the identification principle remains the only basis in common law for corporate liability for gross negligence manslaughter (see imputation). This was the only persuasive authority for the law of manslaughter at large, but R v DPP, ex parte Jones, which said that the test of negligent manslaughter is objective, confirmed Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1999) as a correct general statement of law.
Title: Manslaughter in English law
Content:  by statute or by the neighbour principle ) and is negligent to such a degree that consequently the law regards it as a crime (namely the person has been grossly negligent) and that person causes the victim to die, they may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession. In R v Bateman the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the 
Title: Homicide in English law
Content:  some regulatory offences. Some commentators took Andrews as excluding strict liability and negligence cases out of constructive manslaughter, although contrary to the exact wording in the judgment there; however, a separate case also called R v Andrews convicted the defendant of constructive manslaughter based on a strict liability offence and this alternative proposition cannot be supported. Gross negligence manslaughter exists as a complementary form, and, if a driver was sufficiently negligent, as well he might, he would be liable for it. This provides an additional reason to exclude such cases from constructive manslaughter. The requirement that the action be dangerous was confirmed in R v Newbury, which applied the previous 
Title: Manslaughter in English law
Content:  crime is 'manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act' (MUDA). The term 'constructive manslaughter' is commonly and correctly used as a synonym. Although the accused did not intend to cause serious harm or foresee the risk of doing so, and although an objective observer would not necessarily have predicted that serious harm would result, the accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. The case of R v Goodfellow laid out a four-part requirement which if satisfied could lead to liability for MUDA. The person's action must: A number of authorities clarify 
Title: Criminal negligence
Content:  gross negligence manslaughter). The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are: The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because they have endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. Hence, the test is hybrid.
Title: Gross negligence
Content:  Under United States law, proof of gross negligence involves proving all of the elements of an ordinary negligence action, plus the additional element that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of, or with a lack of substantial concern for, the rights of others. For some causes of action that might trigger defenses such as governmental immunity, it may be necessary to prove gross negligence in order to overcome the defense.
Title: Manslaughter in English law
Content: 1) the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care; ; 2) the defendant breached this duty; ; 3) the breach caused the death of the deceased; and ; 4) the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment. 1) he did an act which in fact created an obvious and serious risk of injury to the person or substantial damage to property; and ; 2) when he did the act he either had not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or 

Question: what are the four requirements to establish criminal liability for gross negligence manslaughter?
Answer: the defendant breached this duty.