MAHA ZAMAN

Q. ‘In English law there is a reluctance to impose a duty of care in

negligence in respect of omissions.’ Using case law illustrations,
explain the meaning of this reluctance, the reasons for it and the
exceptions to the general rule.

In the context of English law, there is a prevailing tendency to be hesitant in imposing a duty of care
in negligence cases involving omissions, which refer to instances where individuals fail to act or take
necessary preventive measures. The hesitation stems from the fundamental principles of common
law that govern negligence, which necessitates the establishment of various essential elements, such
as the duty of care. Nevertheless, English law has traditionally demonstrated a cautious approach in
acknowledging the existence of a duty of care in cases where harm arises from a failure to act or an
omission, rather than from a deliberate action. There are several reasons that support this
reluctance.

One compelling factor is the core principle of individual liberty and self-determination. In English
law, there is a significant emphasis placed on the principle of individual freedom, allowing individuals
to exercise their own autonomy, as long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights or well-being
of others. The imposition of a duty to act in all situations involving omissions has the potential to
encroach upon this fundamental principle, thereby limiting personal freedom.

Furthermore, the issue of causation in cases involving omissions is inherently intricate.

Demonstrating a direct causal link between a specific omission and the resulting harm can pose a
considerable challenge, especially when considering the potential involvement of multiple events or
the actions of other individuals or entities. The challenge of establishing a definitive causal
relationship can potentially result in hesitancy when it comes to imposing a duty of care.

Another factor contributing to this hesitance is the possibility of excessive liability expansion.
Expanding the scope of liability for omissions in a broad manner may lead to a significant increase in
the number of potential claims, which could potentially overload the legal system and present
practical challenges.

Please add cases for general principle; Stovin v Wise with Lord Hoffmans judgement plus the social
moral and political reasons he gave in this case and lord Nicolls dissenting judgement. Also add other
case law with case facts.

Notwithstanding this hesitancy, English law acknowledges certain instances where the general
principle is overridden, allowing for the imposition of a duty of care for omissions. This is contingent
upon the existence of particular circumstances and relationships between the parties involved.
These exceptions can be observed in a variety of case law examples.

The case of Barrett v. Ministry of Defence (1995) exemplifies the emergence of a duty of care owing
to a unique relationship between a soldier and the Ministry of Defence. This duty of care was
established due to the MOD's failure to adequately administer appropriate medical treatment to the
soldier.
The landmark legal case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) serves as a prime example of how a
manufacturer can be held accountable for ensuring the safety of its consumers, ultimately
establishing the concept of a duty of care.

The establishment of statutes and regulations can give rise to a legal obligation to exercise a duty of
care in situations involving omissions. According to the Children Act of 1989, local authorities are
obligated to fulfil their duty of care in order to safeguard children from harm and neglect.

The legal precedent set by the Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970) case established that when a
party is responsible for creating a hazardous situation, they may be obligated to mitigate potential
harm by taking appropriate and reasonable measures. Add more case law and elaborate

The case of Kent v. Griffiths (2000) established that an ambulance service bears the responsibility of
promptly responding to a 999 call as they possess control over the potential harm that may arise
from delayed assistance.

The rest of the three exceptions are missing including the relevant case law with each exception.

In conclusion, the English legal system exhibits a hesitancy to establish a legal obligation to exercise
care in cases of negligence involving omissions. This reluctance is rooted in fundamental principles of
personal autonomy, intricate issues surrounding causation, and apprehensions regarding the
potential expansion of liability. However, it is important to note that there are exceptions to this
overarching principle. These exceptions are based on particular situations and connections, with the
objective of finding a middle ground between individual liberty and the imperative of ensuring
justice and safeguarding against harm.

7/25

The essay is missing exceptions as well as relevant case law. Also please work on the structure of
your essay