Q: The range of duty which ground liability for omission is far too narrow and should be expanded.

Imposing a general duty of “easy rescue” would be straightforward and a welcome development of
the law. Discuss.

The statement includes definition of Omission, the circumstances in which a crime can be committed by the way of
omission and what are its requirements? Moreover, the answer will address the scope of law regarding omission
due to the imposition of the general duty of “easy rescue” and is this general duty favorable for the development
of law?

Omission is simply referred when a defendant fails to perform an act when he is placed under a legal duty to
perform. The failure to perform an act under a legal obligation is Omission. There are three requirements where
omission is involved: the conduct element of the crime in question must be capable of commission by omission,
the circumstances must be such as to create legal duty to act and the omission must be voluntary.

In the light of case laws, it is evident that offence can be committed by way of omission on the basis of the type of
relationships involved. In the case of DPP v Santana Bermudez, it was held that assault could be committed by the
way of omission. In another case of People v Beardsley, duty of care was imposed on the defendant because it was
his conduct which placed him in the situation. In Pitwood, the failure to close the gate was held to be the actus
reus for murder. It can be clearly observed that in different scenarios, offence could be committed by the way of
omission too but there is no general duty imposed by the law on anyone to save any person except if the
dangerous situation is created by the defendant as in the case of Miller where defendant created a dangerous
situation by his own conduct (sleeping without extinguishing cigarette). The criteria or duty for the liability of
omission is narrow to some extent as in the light of case laws above mentioned but still there is a proper criteria
for establishing the duties which give rise to liability of omissions.

The imposition of the general duty of “easy rescue” simply means to save or rescue someone who is engaged in a
life threatening situation and can be easily saved without any unreasonable risk, delay or cost. However, a person
could not be questioned for such breach of duty because he was not morally liable to save the person in dangerous
situation but this is still a matter which Parliament can address in order to give significance to breach of even such
duties where moralities are involved. Failure to perform a moral duty to rescue someone should be considered
equally embarrassing and wrong as a simple omission is. This general duty has some objections such as the issue of
inconsistency and uncertainty in terms of reasonable way to react in such scenarios. What a reasonable man
should do in such scenarios is still vague!

On the other hand, this duty is favourable to some extent because it would give rise to foundation of good
citizenship and social integrity. This duty is consistent with the moral values of the society and is important for the
development of law on this aspect. There are some duties which are understood as an example of good citizenship
and of morally strong background, to report a car accident or to save neighbors from any type of inconvenience.
Such duties can’t be said inconsistent with the “fair warning principle” because these duties are neither difficult to
perform nor risky in terms of any inconvenience. A point of imposing burden of unfairness of society still remains
unaddressed because individual citizens can’t be punished on these aspects, if someone doesn’t show any urgency
or immediate reaction to a dangerous situation, he can’t be charged for such harm. The society as a whole should
morally be strong to rescue someone if there is no unreasonable risk factor involved and yes due to these duties
the law regarding omissions is a bit developed and emerged. The duties are commonly narrow but addition of
these duties on the basis of moralities are essential for the development of law and society as a whole.