Law does not impose liability for mere omissions only. Explain.

Every legal concept focuses on the things that an individual should not do, as well
as the things that he can and should do. The law is composed of hypothetical
patterns of wrongful acts or omissions. First, a person should not commit an act
to avoid any sort of Damages; second, he must undertake an action to attain
certain specified purposes; and third, he must adhere to specific conduct or
behaviour to avoid any type of penalty. When it comes to subjective
responsibility, tort typically involves two basic features: Wrongful act or
omission, and Legal injury or Damage.

Concept of Tort and its essentials

To understand the concept of omission, it is important to first conceptualize the

meaning of Tort.

Notes (2 Pg)

Concept of Omission

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 specifically does not define the term ‘omission’.
Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code states the term act and omission. The words
have not been defined especially, the Code states that the word act implies a series
of acts as the single act. The word omission implies the series of omissions as a
single omission.

The legal definition of the term omission defines it that “a failure to perform an
act agreed to, where there is a duty to an individual or the public to act or is
required by the law. Such an omission may give rise to a lawsuit in the same way
as a negligent and improper act”. On the other hand, it may be referred to as a
failure to act when an obligation has been assigned to it and it has not been carried
out in compliance with the law.

Omission liability is a liability that is imposed for an omission i.e., failure to act.
However, under law of torts, the tortfeasor does not have to be necessary liable
for his failure to act.
Omission: An essential component to constitute a tort

The laws that govern omission liability allow the action for damages even if the
tortfeasor does not do an act. The issue of liability for omissions involves several
important concerns in the law of torts.

In torts, liability is based on wrongful acts. The word 'act' connotes both
positive and negative acts viz., acts and omissions. In tort, the wrongful acts
which make a person liable are positive acts and wrongful omissions which
makes a person liable are negative acts. An omission is a failure to do an act as
a whole. An omission incurs liability when there is a duty to act. A person is
held liable for failure to attempt and act where there is a duty to act.

An act is any event that is subject to the control of the human will. The acts may
be either acts of commission or acts of omission. A wrong-doer either does that
which he ought not to do or leaves undone that which he ought to do. If a person
wilfully deceives another by making false representations to him, he is liable for
the positive wrong of deceit. If, on the other hand, he wilfully withholds
information from another to whom he is duty-bound to give information in full,
he may thereby be causing injury to him. He may nevertheless be liable to him
for his omission to supply him with full material information. An omission is a
failure to do an act as a whole.

Mere omission doesn’t constitute a tort

The law does not impose liability for mere omission. Because mere omission
doesn’t cause legal injury which is an essential element for determining a tort.
This can be seen in the following torts:

1. Negligence
2. Fraud

1. Negligence

As per Winfield, "Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to the care
which results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the plaintiff". One of
the exceptions or defenses available for the action of negligence is “Omissions
as opposed to positive acts”.

There is no general duty to do positive acts for others' benefit. When you see a
person dying of hunger but you ignore him and leave him without giving
anything to save his life, you are not liable because there is no general legal
duty to provide food. Mere ignorance is not a wrong in the law of torts, for that
matter in eyes of law.

2. Fraud or Deceit

When a person knowingly makes a false statement of fact making another

person suffer loss by acting on the statement, it may amount to the tort of deceit
or fraud.

The first essential to be proved in an action of deceit is that the defendant made
a false statement or representation. It may be oral, written, or implied from the
conduct of the defendant.

Suppression of truth (suppressio veri) may amount to a suggestion of falsehood

(suggestio falsi). Concealment of this kind is sometimes called 'active',
'aggressive', or 'industrious', but perhaps the word itself constitutes fraudulent
misrepresentation. There must be "such a partial and fragmentary statement of
fact, that the withholding of that which is not stated, makes that which is stated
false". Half the truth will sometimes amount to a real falsehood.

One of the exceptions under tort of fraud is “Mere silence”.

To constitute fraud or deceit, the defendant should make a positive false

statement of fact. Mere silence about a material fact will not give a right of
action for fraud unless-

(a) active artificial means have been taken to prevent the other party from
discovering the fact for himself; or
(b) the essence of the transaction implied confidence, reposed in the party
concealing to divulge all material facts.

A mere non-disclosure of the truth or mere silence as to certain facts does not
amount to fraud.