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 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.