Whether Or Not A Person Has A Positive Duty To Prevent Harm Is Both A Complex And Fundamental Question In English Tort Law. There Is A Distinction Drawn Between Doing Harm And Failing To Prevent It, Between Acts And Omissions. However, There Are Instances In Which A Failure To Act Can Have Legal Consequences. 'omissions In Tort Law' Analyses The Justification For The Lack Of A General Positive Duty To Prevent Harm And Argues That It Is Not Best Understood In Terms Of The Distinction Between Acts And Omissions, But In Terms Of Making Things Worse Versus Not Making Things Better. Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Table Of Cases -- Table Of Legislation -- United Kingdom -- United States: Restatements -- France -- Germany -- Denmark -- Czech Republic -- Australia -- Singapore -- International Treaties -- Introduction -- 1 . Why Omissions Liability In Tort -- 2. Aims -- 3. Kinds Of Claim Made And Method -- 4. Tort Law -- 5. Terminology: Positive And Negative Duties, Rights, Liabilities -- 6. Jurisdiction -- 7. Overview -- 1 Isolating The Distinction Between Acts And Pure Omissions -- 1. The Legal Significance Of The Distinction Between Acts And Pure Omissions -- 2. The Special Facts In English Law: A Preview -- 3. The Tort Law Understanding Of The Distinction Between Acts And Pure Omissions -- 4. Replacing The Act Versus Pure Omission Distinction: Making Worse And Not Making Better (or Failing To Confer A Benefit) -- 5. Replacing The Act Versus Pure Omission Distinction: Causing And Not Preventing Harm -- 6. A Kantian Alternative -- 7. Rule And Exceptions -- 8. An Impossible Distinction? -- 9. Conclusions -- 2 Justifying A Distinction -- 1. Justifications For A Moral Difference Between N-duties And P-duties -- 2. Legal Enforcement: Intrinsic Objections To Enforcement Of P-duties -- 3. Contingent Negative Consequences Of Legal Enforcement Of P-duties -- 4. Tort Law As An Inept Regulator Of Moral P-duties -- 5. Conclusions -- 3 Innocent Creation Of Risk And Interference -- 1. Innocent Creation Of Risk -- 2. Interference -- 3. Conclusions -- 4 Assumptions Of Responsibility: Part 1-the Law -- 1. Four Strands Of Assumption Of Responsibility -- 2. Conclusion -- 5 Assumptions Of Responsibility: Part 2-normative Issues -- 1. Justifications For P-duties Arising By Virtue Of An Assumption Of Responsibility -- 2. Which Relationships And Roles?. 3. Taking On Tasks And Rescues -- 4. Public Authorities And Assumption Of Responsibility -- 5. Conclusion -- 6 Control -- 1. Control As A Source Of Duties To The Controlled -- 2. Control As A Source Of Duties To Third Parties -- 3. Justifying Control-based Duties -- 4. Conclusion -- 7 Statute -- 1. Express Statutory Rights To Compensation For Breach Of P-duties -- 2. P-duties Actionable In The Tort Of Breach Of Statutory Duty -- 3. Breach Of Statutory Duty And P-duties: The Future -- 4. Conclusion -- 8 Current Protection From A Risk -- 1. Current Protection From Risk Insufficient On Its Own -- 2. Current Protection From Risk As A Source Of P-duties -- 3. Conclusion: A General Principle? -- 9 Easy Rescue -- 1. English Law: No General Duty Of Easy Rescue -- 2. A Defence Of Duties Of Easy Rescue -- 3. Alternative Accounts Of The Duty Of Easy Rescue -- 4. Conclusion -- 10 Public Authorities -- 1. The Equality Principle -- 2. Justifying The Negative Equality Principle -- 3. A Positive Case For Actionable P-duties Beyond The Negative Equality Principle -- 4. Public Authority Liability For Breach Of P-duties: English Law -- 5. Conclusion -- 11 Beyond Duty Issues: Breach, Causation, Remedies -- 1. Standards Of Duty -- 2. Causation And P-duties -- 3. Remedies -- 4. Conclusion -- 12 Conclusion-restating The Law On Pure Omissions -- 1. General Primary Tort Duties -- 2. Tort Primary Duties Arising From Special Facts -- 3. Public Authorities -- 4. Non-duty Rules In Relation To Pure Omissions -- 5. Paths Not Taken -- 6. Implications -- Index. Sandy Steel. Includes Index.