Chapter 3: Omission Flashcards
What is omission?
Omission is a failuire to act (a negative act)
What is the general understanding of omission?
A person is not liable to omission, unless they have a duty to act which the law imposes a duty on the defendant to do a particular act
If the person fails to act, they are liable. (although it is a negative act, since they have the duty to act it is equivalent to a postitive act)
Is omission a positive act?
No, it is a negative act, although if one has a duty of care/duty to act, it is treated as a equivalent to a positive act.
Are legal duties imposed on a person forever lasting?
Legal duty is not forever, it can be discharged. But must be done reasonably as it depends on circumstances of each individual case; through objectivity test
What is the assumption by law of a normal samaritan with regards to the negative act?
The law is autonimous in this regard, that an ordinary person does not have a duty to protect someone
What are the 3 elements of omission?
- A duty of care is imposed by law
- A wilful breach of such study of care
- Breach caused prohibited criminal result
What are the 3 examples of statues that impose a duty of care.
- Section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (amended by the RTA, 1991)
- An offence if one fails to report a road traffic accident to the police within 24 hours
- Section 6 of the RTA 1988
- Offence for a motorist who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a police officer with a breath specimen when required to do so
- Section 1(2)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
- Offence when one fails to maintain a child. Doesn’t just apply to parents (can be guardian, or sm that’s supposed to take care of them)
- When a person is legally responsible to maintain a child fails to do so by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or a place to stay
What are the 6 common law that imposes a duty of care?
- Duty arising through contractual obligation (i.e. jobs)
- Duty arising from relationships (Legal or Blood)
- Duty arising from the assumption of care for another (person can’t care for themselves)
- Duty through holding public office (i.e. law enforcements)
- Duty through creation of dangerous situations
- The extent of duty on doctors to keep patient alive
R v Pittwood [1902]
contractual
Facts: Accused was employed by railway company to ensure that the gate was shut when a train was due to pass (duty of care)
Held: There was a gross negligence, as the man was paid to keep the gate shut and protects the public. A man might incur criminal liability from a duty arising out of contract
Doctrine of Privity of contract
What is the general duty that common law imposes in duty arising from relationships?
Generally common law imposes a duty on parents to protect their children from physical harm and that spouses are under a duty to aid each other
R v Gibbins & Proctor [1918]
Relationship
Facts: Man had a mistress and had a child, the man gave money to the mistress to feed the child, but she didn’t buy food.
Man and woman convicted of murder of a man’s child, as they withheld and starved the child to death
Held: The woman was also found guilty as she took the money to buy food for the man’s child (at this moment she had the assumed a duty towards the child)
Re B (a minor) [1981] 1 WLR 1421
Relationship
Facts: Baby was suffered from down syndrome which required an operation for the child to live. Parent refused their onset to operation.
Held: Court stated that the decision of the parents to allow the child to die was entirely responsible
What are the 3 elements of the duty arising from the assumption of care for another?
Voluntary assumption of responsibility
- The assumption of responsibility must be voluntary
- Must distinguish between assumption of mere “care” and “responsibility”
- Assumption of responsibility must be of an individual incapable of taking care of themselves and has since become reliant on the defendant
R v Instan [1893]
VAR
Facts: Defendant lived with aunt who became ill and unable to care for herself or even ask for help.
Held: D charged and convicted with manslaughter, held that she was living with aunt meant a duty was imposed on her to care for the aunt.
Which she willfully and deliberately unperformed
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977]
VAR
Facts: D’s sister was eccentric, morbidly and unnecessarily anxious about putting on weight.
1st time it happened, they were just in time to save her. 2nd time, died. Were not in time to call doctor.
Held: Court was of the opinion that S and D providing minimal care to the victim had assumed a duty of care towards the victim and had been grossly negligent