Abstract
This article, after briefly showing how legal metaphysics are needed to transform non-feasance and non-existent causation into a basis for liability, discusses the pros and cons, and requirements, of liability for omissions, starting from the arguments put forward by Lord Hoffmann in a famous English decision of 1996. It further analyses the risk of continuously and retrospectively creating new duties of care which are then logically infringed when the damage occurs in a way that could have been prevented by complying with one of those very same duties. The article finally comes to the conclusion that liability for omissions is justified in circumstances where an intervention is required by the concept of ‘neighbourhood’ and where an abstention would be contrary to ‘human duties’.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have