Act or omission: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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.
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™


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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.

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Act_or_omission&oldid=34820"