Act or omission

Towards more picturesque speech™ Go Premium George Orwell on plain English | SEC guidance on plain EnglishPlain English Anatomy™ Noun | Verb | Adjective | Adverb | Preposition | Conjunction | Latin | Germany | Flannel | Legal triplicate | Nominalisation | Murder your darlings Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Plain English Drafting Metaphor 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 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.