Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party. For example, if a company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party, and the catering company fails to show up, it is considered nonfeasance.
Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff. In theory, misfeasance is distinct from nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is a failure to act ...
[1] [citation needed] Malfeasance in office contrasts with "misfeasance in office", which is the commission of a lawful act, done in an official capacity, that improperly causes harm; and "nonfeasance in office", which is the failure to perform an official duty.
But criminal negligence is a "misfeasance" or "nonfeasance" (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness , where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation.
Misfeasance in public office is considered to be a special kind of public law tort. It occurs when there is a malicious or deliberate exercise or non-exercise of a statutory or common law power by an official which causes loss to a plaintiff which has been foreseen.
Provided a plaintiff could show that the defendant was guilty of misfeasance, deceit, or the plaintiff had made a pre-payment, the plaintiff could bring assumpsit for nonfeasance. By the beginning of the 16th century, lawyers recognised a distinct species of action on the case known as assumpsit, which had become the typical phrase in the ...
The Court of Appeal in the present case took the view, at [2002] QB 929, 997, para 97, that the four cases upon which Denning LJ based his summary of the law were decided when "the law of nuisance drew a clear distinction between misfeasance and non-feasance".
Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in United States tort law which arises where one party ("the entrustor") is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party ("the entrustee") with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality.