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

English Law does not normally compel obligation for failure to act despite the fact that thither may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. Critically discuss this statement - Assignment ExampleThis is one of the questionable areas of tort law. For instance, if a person sees a child drowning in a pool but does nothing to save 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 caused due 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 rather preserves the license of choice for people as they are in the best position to judge their own ability. If one is able to save someone, they may same them. tho where one is incapable of saving someone, they should not be forced by law to save them.It is not that failure to act always escapes liability to a lower place 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. between the plaintiff and the defendant. Innkeepers, common carriers and certain other business relationships are also covered in this category. Defendants have an affirmative transaction to act on the plaintiffs behalf and prevent injury where there is such a relation. Another 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 eliminate 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 that can cause harm to the plaintiff, the defendant has a duty to act and stop the danger.It can be said that maybe the establishment of duty does coincide with moral principles. In Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co