Welcome to Anagrammer Crossword Genius! Keep reading below to see if omissions is an answer to any crossword puzzle or word game (Scrabble, Words With Friends etc). Scroll down to see all the info we have compiled on omissions.
omissions
Searching in Crosswords ...
The answer OMISSIONS has 11 possible clue(s) in existing crosswords.
Searching in Word Games ...
The word OMISSIONS is VALID in some board games. Check OMISSIONS in word games in Scrabble, Words With Friends, see scores, anagrams etc.
Searching in Dictionaries ...
Definitions of omissions in various dictionaries:
noun - a mistake resulting from neglect
noun - something that has been omitted
noun - any process whereby sounds or words are left out of spoken words or phrases
Word Research / Anagrams and more ...
Keep reading for additional results and analysis below.
| Possible Dictionary Clues |
|---|
| Plural form of omission. |
| someone or something that has been left out or excluded. |
| Omissions description |
|---|
| The omissions of individuals are generally not criminalised in English criminal law, subject to situations of special duty, contractual duty, and the creation of dangerous situations. Whilst other jurisdictions have adopted general statutory duties to rescue, it is not recognised in English law that an individual has any duty to assist strangers in situations of peril. Proponents of the current legal position regard it as wrong for the criminal law to punish individuals for committing no physical act, which it is argued would be an infringement on human autonomy. Academics arguing for reform argue that a social responsibility to assist others should exist, particularly where there would be no danger to the rescuer.Liability for omissions has long existed where a pre-existing duty can be established between two parties. For example, where an individual accidentally creates a small fire in a flat, he is under a duty to take reasonable steps to extinguish it, or to summon help. A special duty also exists between parents and their children, and an omission of a parent to save their young child from drowning would result in criminal liability, as it is deemed a parent voluntarily undertakes to ensure the wellbeing of their child. Other duties may be inferred from contractual obligations, and so an individual employed to ensure individuals do not cross a railway line while there are trains running would be found criminally negligent where he abandoned his post.History of omissions* The courts were initially reluctant to impose liability for omissions, as demonstrated by the early case of R v Smith, decided in 1869. The facts were that a watchman employed by a railway company took a break from his duties, and in this time a man was killed by an oncoming train. Lush LJ held that whilst an omission could constitute an act of murder, because there was no statutory duty for the railway to provide a watchman, there could not be any criminal liability. However, thirty years later, in the case of R v Pittwood, the court adopted a different stance to a case of similar facts. In this case, a gatekeeper for a railway service in Somerset negligently forgot to close a gate – allowing access by vehicles (cars/horse-drawn) to a railway line – whilst going to lunch. It was held that despite the fact he was privately employed, he had materially contributed to the following accident, by opening the gate and then failing to close it. The reasoning used by the courts in this case however can be seen as problematic in establishing liability for omissions. Wright LJ's position was that the watchman's misfeasance in itself contributed to the accident, which would suggest that it was his opening of the gate which was criminalised, rather than his failure to shut it. It has been submitted by John Smith that this decision implies the result would have been different if the watchman had come on duty to find an open gate, and had subsequently not shut it, an outcome... |