Act or omission
|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.