Law I / Negligence and Omission
Practice question · Multiple choice

A strong swimmer watches a stranger drown in shallow water and does nothing. Why is this not homicide by omission, even though acting would certainly have saved the man?

Hints
  1. Ask where the duty to prevent this particular result would come from.
  2. Ease of prevention is not a source of duty.
Show the answer

B. Liability requires a legal duty to prevent harm, which mere capability does not establish

Why

Because commission by omission needs a position of guarantor, and capacity to help is not one. Article 11 requires a special legal duty whose breach is equivalent to causing the result. What the swimmer does commit is the pure-omission offence of failing to render assistance, which exists precisely to cover the person who has no guarantor duty and could easily have acted.

Read the lesson: Negligence and Omission →

Practise Negligence and Omission

The app has 4 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Law I is free to start.

More questions on Negligence and Omission