Essay on Liability for Omissions

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

As aforementioned, Scots law does not impose criminal liability for failure to act, except in certain limited circumstances. These include both common law rules and statutory enactments. There are four instances at common law which give rise to criminal liability for failure to act, i.e., duties arising from close proximity relationships such as parent and child, voluntary assumption of responsibility, creation of dangerous situations or contractual duties . In Bone v HMA , a pregnant mother was found to be under a duty to save her child from the attacks of her violent partner . Per contra, in R v Instan and R v Stone and Dobinson the court held that when voluntarily assuming

“…a catch-all expression… it’s the idea that for every accident someone is at fault. For every injury, someone to blame. And, perhaps most damaging, for every accident, there is someone to pay” (Lord Falconer, 2005).

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

Due to my recent troubles at work I have been counseled twice in the past several weeks. This has given me a lot of time to reflect at the way I have really presented myself in the Army thus far. I have not always been the best Soldier that I could have been during most of the time I that I have been in so far. Thinking about this does bother me, it means that I could be trying harder to get ahead and better myself as a Soldier and a person. Lets say for example I have been late to work twice in the past several weeks not only to include missing a pt formation altogether. I did this by not ensuring that i had met alo of my neds to ensure that i woudl wake up in the morning. But by doing

Determining responsibility to report under the law is a complex action that requires the analysis of several different sections of relevant law. Not only must the laws regarding mandatory reporting be analyzed, the specific nuances of this case must be examined. Specifically, I will need to address three separate issues.

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

Note that a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if the claimant was unforeseeable. See:

Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be

The involuntary automaticity would help victims of negligence as it focuses on carrying out parallel tasks . Notwithstanding the losses, Caparo would well benefit through this task. The duty of care clearly questions with regards to the judicial relationship of parties who are questioned for their respective roles in these types of cases . The judicial opinions are widespread following Caparo v Dickman case. By various case samples, it would be appropriate that tort of negligence would provide corrective justice for the victims . In this case, Caparo might claim for compensation citing economic loss based on Dickman’s account details. However, the judgement did not favour the claimant as the accountant is not in a special relationship like

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

“Omission” is a phrase that is only used correctly when there is a failure to commit an act, or do a minimal act to which a reasonable person may be expected to do. This essay will show that the exceptions added to the “checklist” of omissions should exist, and argue that having no liability for omissions is defensible.

The common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.