LAWS 204 - ommisions cases

Front

What is the general rule regarding ommisions cases? Why?

Back

According to Proffesor Todd, generally, the defendant is not liable from ommiting to prevent harm to the plaintiff in a case where the third-party is responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

Front

What is a distinction between pure ommisions and impure ommisions? Why?

Back

In the case of Poole, the court held that pure ommisions encompass the defendant failing to make things better by intervening, whereas impure omissions encompass the defendant making the situation (of which they had control over) worse by not intervening/ommiting to act.

Front

Give an example of the distiction between pure ommisions and impure ommisions using case law.

Back

In the case of Couch, the court held that because the probation service (defendant) was involved in the killers (third party) employment at the bar where he caused harm to the plaintiff, the defendant made a ‘positive act’ that contributed to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, which is why the general rule regarding omissions cases was inapplicable here. 

Front

What is the first exception to the general rule of omission?

Back

The first exception to the ommisions rule is induced reliance.

Front

What does the first exception to the general rule regarding ommision cases, mean?

Back

In the case of Mercer, the court held that because the defendant had induced the reliance of the plaintiff by letting him cross the railway every day, it did not matter that on the day in question, the defendant ommited from granting access to the plaintiff through the railway, induced reliance is an exception to the general rule regarding ommisions and therefore, the defendant is liable for negligence in this case.

Front

What is the second exception to the general rule regarding omission?

Back

The second exception to the general rule regarding ommisions is the defendant's occupation of the property.

Front

What does the second exception to the general rule regarding ommisions, mean?

Back

It means that (as was held in the case of Goldman) if the defendant is the occupier of the land, and they can reasonably forsee that a source of danger on their land could lead to the plaintiff suffering harm, then that is an exception to the general rule regarding ommisions.

Front

How did the case of Wilson, further accentuate this second exception, regarding the general rule around ommisions?

Back

In the case of Wilson, the court held that if the defendant had both occupation and control of the property and the source of danger, then that is an exception to the general rule regarding ommisions cases, and the defendant may be liable for negligence in such cases!

Front

What is the fourth exception to the omission rule, and what does it mean?

Back

Special relationship between the parties is the fourth exception to the rule of ommisions. This means that if there is a special relationship between the parties (i.e Buisness and customer, Doctor and Paitent, employer and employee), the defendant will owe the plaintiff a duty of care.

Front

What did the court hold in the case of Agar?

Back

The court in the case of Agar held that even if there is a special relationship between the parties, there still needs to be adequete proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff.