Act or omission: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{pe}}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 betw..." |
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 quite differently a positive action that caused loss, and a failure to do something which might have avoided a loss which was going to happen anyway, but it still comes down to the question of whether the defendant was under a 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. | |||
Revision as of 11:39, 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 quite differently a positive action that caused loss, and a failure to do something which might have avoided a loss which was going to happen anyway, but it still comes down to the question of whether the defendant was under a 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.