Common Law Rule on Failure to ActThis is a featured page

In this week's reading we saw the common law rule illustrated in Hegel v. Langsam, which can most generally be stated as: "In the common law, there is NO duty to act." A rephrasing could read: "In the common law, there is generally NO liability for a failure to act." These rules can be seen in contract law as well (at least by section 6) in Hurley v. Eddingfield, where a physician was not held liable for failing without any reason to go to the aid of someone who later died from a lack of medical attention which was otherwise unavailable. Of course there are now several exceptions to the common law rule (which I'm sure will be dealt with in the next sub-section), but strict common law countries often continue to follow the view that, "With purely moral obligations the law does not deal."


mwa2010
mwa2010
Latest page update: made by mwa2010 , Jan 17 2008, 9:22 AM EST (about this update About This Update mwa2010 Edited by mwa2010

147 words added

view changes

- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page
There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.