Act or omission: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pe}}Do we really need to say “[[act or omission|act ''or'' omission]]” every time? Could you make the argument that, look, it is obvious that there is no difference between a positive act you were not entitled to do, which caused me loss, and your failure to perform an act you were required to do which caused me loss, so that I don't need to say, ''ad nauseam'', “[[act]] [[and/or]] [[omission]] [[as the case may be]]”? | {{pe}}Do we really need to say “[[act or omission|act ''or'' omission]]” every time? Could you make the argument that, look, it is obvious that there is no difference between a positive act you were not entitled to do, which caused me loss, and your failure to perform an act you were required to do which caused me loss, so that I don't need to say, ''ad nauseam'', “[[act]] [[and/or]] [[omission]] [[as the case may be]]”? | ||
It gets somewhat existential. On one hand the law, at least in [[negligence]] will treat | It gets somewhat existential. On one hand the law, at least in [[negligence]] will treat ''a positive action that caused loss'', quite differently from ''a failure to do something to avoid a loss which was going to happen anyway'', but it still comes down to whether the defendant, Mr Haddock, was under some legal duty. | ||
The court will be slower to impose a duty to take action, than to ask that when one is taking action, one should avoid harming obnoxious bystanders. | |||
{{c|Metaphyiscs}} | |||
Latest revision as of 11:42, 27 November 2019
|
Towards more picturesque speech™
|
Do we really need to say “act or omission” every time? Could you make the argument that, look, it is obvious that there is no difference between a positive act you were not entitled to do, which caused me loss, and your failure to perform an act you were required to do which caused me loss, so that I don't need to say, ad nauseam, “act and/or omission as the case may be”?
It gets somewhat existential. On one hand the law, at least in negligence will treat a positive action that caused loss, quite differently from a failure to do something to avoid a loss which was going to happen anyway, but it still comes down to whether the defendant, Mr Haddock, was under some legal duty.
The court will be slower to impose a duty to take action, than to ask that when one is taking action, one should avoid harming obnoxious bystanders.