Multiple Choice
What reasons have been given to justify the principle that no duty of care is owed in respect of mere omissions?
Please select all that apply.
A) Such a duty may apply to a many people who happen to be able to do something - why should one be liable any more than others?
B) Such a duty may apply to an indeterminate group of people who might happen to be able to do something in the circumstances but who could not be clearly defined before the situation arose.
C) It would be impossible for there to be a workable law imposing a duty of care in respect of omissions - essentially a duty to act.
D) There is no justification for requiring a person who is not doing anything in particular to spend money or time on behalf of someone else.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: In Smith v Littlewoods Ltd [1987]), Lord
Q2: What is the best explanation of why
Q3: It is problematic to find that a
Q4: The law on whether there is, or
Q5: Parents always owe a duty of care
Q6: In which of the circumstances outlined below
Q7: Why did the claimants lose in Palmer
Q9: Complete this quote, taken from Beldam LJ's