'English Law does not normally impose liability for failure to act Assignment

English Law does not normally chitchat liability for loser to act notwithstanding the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. Critically discuss this statement - appellative ExampleThis is one of the questionable areas of tort law. For instance, if a person sees a child drowning in a pool solely does nothing to spare him, they would not be held liable. However, if that person jumps in the water to save the child and acts negligently while doing so hence causing harm, they would be held liable for the harm pull ind ascribable to their negligence. This paper discusses whether it is fair and justified for English law to not impose any liability upon failure to act, and the extent to which it collides with moral principles. It would be seen that the law actually does not violate any moral principles. It sooner preserves the freedom of choice for people as they are in the best position to arbiter their own ability. If one is able to save someone, they m ay same them. But where one is incapable of frugality someone, they should not be forced by law to save them.It is not that failure to act ever escapes liability under English law there are a few exceptions where courts do impose a liability. The most common are the circumstances where there is a special relationship e.g. parental, conjugal, doctor-patient. amongst the plaintiff and the defendant. Innkeepers, common carriers and certain other business relationships are also covered in this category. Defendants guard an affirmative duty to act on the plaintiffs behalf and prevent injury where there is such a relation. another(prenominal) exception is the one that is briefly mentioned above there is no liability for not acting but once the defendant decides to act, they must do so in a reasonable way so as to avoid any harm that may be caused to the plaintiff due to the defendants negligence. Also, where the defendant has a control over land, a third party, or dangerous things tha t can cause harm to the plaintiff, the defendant has a duty to act and stop the danger.It can be said that mayhap the establishment of duty does coincide with moral principles. In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co