Omission Flashcards
Omissions (failing to act)
As a general rule, the duties imposed by the law of negligence are duties not to cause injury or damage to others; they are not duties actively to help others. And if there is no duty, there is no
liability. If, for example, you see someone drowning, you generally have no legal duty to save them, no matter how easy it might be to do so (unless there are special reasons why the law would impose such a duty on you in particular, such as under an employment contract as a lifeguard). This means tort law generally holds people liable for acts (the things they do), not omissions (the things they fail to do).
Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1999).
The case was brought by the widow of a man who had committed suicide while in police custody. Although previous case law had accepted that the police had a duty of care to prevent suicide attempts by prisoners who were mentally ill, Mr Reeves was found to have been completely sane, and the police therefore argued that while clearly they had a duty of care not to cause his death, they could not be held responsible for the fact that he chose to kill himself, and had no duty to prevent him from doing so. However, the Court of Appeal held that their duty of care to protect a prisoner’s health did extend to taking reasonable care to prevent him or her from attempting suicide; they accepted that to impose a positive duty like this was unusual, but explained that it was justified by the very high degree of control which the police would have over a prisoner, and the well known high risk of suicide among suspects held in this way.
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
Mr Vellino was a career criminal, with an extensive record, and was well known to the local police. On several occasions the police had gone to his flat to arrest him, and he had tried to escape by jumping from the second
floor windows to the ground floor below. On the occasion that gave rise to the case, the police
arrived and Mr Vellino jumped, as usual, but this time he seriously injured himself, ending up with
brain damage and paralysis, which made him totally dependent on others for his needs. He sued the police, arguing that they were under a duty to prevent him from escaping, and their failure to do so had caused his injuries. It was, his counsel argued, foreseeable that he would try to escape, and foreseeable injury could result. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument entirely, pointing out that it would mean that arresting officers had a duty to hold a suspect in the lightest possible grip, just in case he or she wrenched a shoulder in struggling to break free.
