Liability for Omissions | Law of Tort

#education #law #learning
The Law Academy is a project designed to provide legal education for students studying law in the UK. Subscribe for more content.
K. Horsey & E. Rackley, Tort Law (Oxford University Press, 2023)
C. Brennan, Tort Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (Oxford University Press, 2021).
S. Green & J. Gardner, Tort Law (Red Globe Press, 2021).
P. Giliker, Tort (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2023).
The law of tort in the United Kingdom is a branch of civil law that deals with civil wrongs or injuries caused by one party to another. It provides a legal framework for individuals to seek compensation for harm or loss suffered as a result of someone else's actions or omissions.
Tort law covers a wide range of situations, including negligence, intentional harm, and strict liability. Negligence is a central concept in tort law and involves the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. To establish a claim of negligence, the injured party must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused foreseeable harm.
In addition to negligence, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, which involve deliberate acts that cause harm, such as assault, battery, and defamation. Strict liability is another important aspect of tort law, whereby a party can be held liable for harm caused, regardless of fault or intent.
Tort law in the UK is primarily based on common law principles, which means that it is developed through judicial decisions rather than legislation. However, there are also statutory provisions that govern specific areas of tort law, such as the Defamation Act 2013 and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957.
Overall, the law of tort aims to provide a legal framework for individuals to seek redress for harm suffered, while also promoting the principles of fairness, justice, and accountability.
Disclaimer:
At no point are these video lessons intended to provide any sort of legal advice. These are for educational purposes only!
Image(s) Copyright: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

[@thelawacademy1]

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

[@hughoconnell1086]

if the general approach is that failure to do something in a general setting does not give rise to liability. Which was the reasoning behind the holding in Stovin v Wise, how come one of the exceptions that results in liability for omission: Creator of the source of danger resulting in injury did not apply? Is the local authority not responsible for the danger?

[@andyt9677]

Regarding Barrett vs Ministry of Defence, I wonder if the case would have turned out differently if it wasn't the duty officer who left him alone but just another individual who walked him back to his room and left him alone.
I think that it would be incorrect to have a random individual who walked a drunk man home be held liable by omission for not supervising him after as he didn't have a duty of care to walk him home in the first place. By holding him liable by omission in this case, we would be incentivising individuals to not take any care towards others out of fear that they are assuming liability if they are unable provide a certain level of care.
In the case, it is a duty officer so I can see how the situation may be different but I would like to hear other's thoughts on if it wasn't a duty officer.