Source: http://docplayer.net/671894-Greek-australian-international-legal-and-medical-conference-2015-developments-in-the-law-relating-to-medical-negligence-in-the-last-30-years.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 10:48:49
Document Index: 604670595

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 16', 'Art. 1', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference "Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years" - PDF
Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference "Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years"
Download "Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference 2015. "Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years""
1 Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference 2015 Monday, 1 June 2015 "Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years" The Hon Justice Susan Kiefel AC High Court of Australia Some historical background The modern law of negligence is based upon a general rule that those whose acts or omissions might injure another should exercise reasonable care to avoid that occurring. The rule is of relatively recent origin and is attributed to a case decided in the early part of the 20th century. In much earlier times, English law showed no interest in providing compensation for unintended injury. Society had other, more pressing, concerns. By the 19th century there was still no general rule for liability for negligence, but particular callings were identified as subject to potential liability for loss to customers for example, innkeepers and common carriers, whose liability was strict. Other callings, such as the surgeon or the attorney were subject to a duty of carefulness. A prominent legal historian suggests that the reason why cases involving these two professions do not appear earlier is that it was not until much later "that these professions attained social dignity by measures taken to eliminate quacks in the one case and swindlers in the other." 1 The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century had a profound effect on the development of the law of negligence. Whilst philosophers debated new theories of individual and societal rights and responsibilities, the courts were grappling with the extent to which industrialists and others should be held liable to compensate for injuries caused by new processes and emergent technologies. It was not until the 1930s that the modern law of negligence is considered to have emerged. As sometimes happens in our system of precedential law, an unremarkable case was responsible for an important statement of legal principle. In 1928, a Scottish woman became ill after drinking ginger beer which was contaminated by a dead snail. Up to this point a manufacturer could only be 1 Winfield, "The History of Negligence in the Law of Torts", (1926) 42 Law Quarterly Review 184 at 187.2 2. held liable to the purchaser of the product and the ginger beer had not been purchased by the woman, but by her friend. In this case 2 the maker of the ginger beer was held liable to the ultimate consumer of the ginger beer by applying the principle that a duty of care is owed to a person who might be affected by one's negligent acts. The person might be called one's "neighbour". It may be of some interest to note that the English judge who wrote that leading judgment, Lord Atkin, was born, and spent his early life, in Brisbane. The elements that needed to be proved in the modern action for negligence could now be stated as follows: the existence of a duty of care; a breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and damage suffered in consequence. Inherent in these, but often considered separately, is the requirement of a causal connection between breach and damage. Developments in the last 30 years an overview In the 80 years or so since that decision, the High Court of Australia has further developed the law of negligence. In the period about which I shall speak the period of 30 years in which this Conference has been held the High Court has considered each of the elements of the action for negligence and it has done so in the context of actions in which medical negligence was alleged. Medical negligence is not a discrete area of the law, but cases involving allegations of negligence against a medical practitioner quite often throw up difficult questions as to the concepts which inform the elements of the action for negligence. My starting point is a landmark decision in 1992, Rogers v Whitaker 3, which doubtless has been largely responsible for the abundance of information which is now routinely provided to patients about surgery or other treatment. It involved the extent of information which should be provided about the risks of treatment. The legal question was the content, or extent, of the duty of care owed to the patient when advising about treatment. My next topic is the problematic question of causation. Causation is the connection necessary, for there to be liability, between an act of negligence and the damage suffered. It is a conclusion about legal responsibility. In the period in question, the High Court discussed the tests for it. The remaining element to be discussed concerns the nature of "damage". The law does not recognise every kind of harm or loss as warranting compensation. I shall discuss three novel claims of damage. 2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC (1992) 175 CLR 479; [1992] HCA 58.3 3. In the course of my discussion of these elements, I will refer to aspects of legislation which was introduced in the latter part of the period, for the purpose of limiting liability. You may recall an inquiry into the rising costs of indemnity and other insurance. It led to the introduction of the Civil Liability Act 2002 in New South Wales and the other States and Territories followed suit. I will comment upon whether this legislation has effected any substantial changes to the law as developed by the High Court. In my conclusion, I will touch upon the interconnectedness of the elements of the action as relevant to the development of the law. Duty and standard of care Rogers v Whitaker The salient facts of Rogers v Whitaker are as follows. The patient had injured her right eye in a childhood accident. An ophthalmic surgeon advised her that an operation on the eye would not only improve its appearance, it would probably also substantially restore sight to it. The operation was not successful in that regard, but it was performed with the requisite care and skill. However, the patient suffered sympathetic ophthalmia post-operatively and as a result of inflammation arising from this lost all sight in the left eye. She became almost totally blind. In Australia it had been accepted that the standard of care to be observed by a professional person is that of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill. The question in this case was whether the observance of that standard of care required information regarding the risk associated with the aftermath of surgery to be given to the patient. The ophthalmic surgeon gave evidence that it had not occurred to him to mention sympathetic ophthalmia to the patient. There was a body of evidence from other medical practitioners to like effect; but there was also evidence from others that they would have given a warning. The state of the evidence may itself have signalled to the Court that the old rule was unsustainable. In England the approach to the resolution of similar problems had been determined by a case which lends its name to the Bolam rule 4. The case, which was heard in the 1950s, involved a patient who was injured whilst receiving ECT treatment without the prior administration of a relaxant drug. Evidence as to the practice to be followed varied as between doctors, leading the Court to formulate a rule that has since been stated as 5 : 4 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER As restated in Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 at 881 per Lord Scarman.4 4. "a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted at the time as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion even though other doctors adopt a different practice. In short, the law imposes the duty of care: but the standard of care is a matter of medical judgment." (emphasis added) It followed from this rule that so long as a sufficient number of medical practitioners adopted the practice in question, the practitioner sued would have a complete defence. It may be observed that the Bolam rule is directed to accepted practice in the actual provision of treatment, whereas Rogers v Whitaker was concerned with advice about risks involved in treatment. In cases decided after Bolam some judges expressed the view that the rule should only apply in cases involving negligent treatment or surgery, but not where the issue was the quality of the advice or information given. In Rogers v Whitaker the Court decided that the rule should be restricted in that way. In relation to diagnosis and treatment, the Court accepted that the Bolam rule would continue to be influential, for the reason that whether a diagnosis or a method of treatment was negligent would depend largely upon medical standards, which are known best by doctors. The question whether a risk is relevant to a patient, and one about which they should be warned, is different. The High Court said that the courts are able to determine this question themselves. Influential to this ruling was the view that a person is entitled to make informed decisions about his or her life. A patient must therefore be informed of "material risks". A risk is material, the Court said, if a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it or the doctor should be aware that this patient would do so. In the case in question, it would be reasonable for a person with one good eye to be concerned about the possibility of injury to it, especially in the context of a procedure which was elective. What the Court said about a patient's right to exercise a personal choice in taking the risks of a surgical procedure should not be misunderstood. The Court was not basing its decision on notions of human rights. In a decision in 2013, which I shall shortly discuss, it made this clear 6. Damages are not awarded for breach of a human right, but for breach of professional duty. In Rogers v Whitaker, the Court did not entirely rule out the exercise of judgment, on the part of a doctor, as to what information is to be given to particular patients and how it is to be conveyed. The qualification it made to the duty owed to patients to give information about risks was where there was a 6 Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 381 [9]; [2013] HCA 19.5 5. danger that the provision of all information would harm an unusually nervous, disturbed or volatile patient. The Civil Liability Act, to which I have earlier referred, addresses the application of the Bolam rule. It provides 7 that a professional person does not incur liability in negligence "if it is established that the professional acted in a manner that (at the time the service was provided) was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice", so long as the practice is not "irrational". The Act does not define what is "widely accepted". It provides merely that the fact that there are differing opinions does not prevent an opinion qualifying 8 and that peer professional opinion does not have to be universally accepted to be widely accepted 9. It is not clear whether those drafting the Civil Liability Act thought that they were effecting a major departure from Rogers v Whitaker. If they did, they would appear to be mistaken, for it is also provided in the Act 10 that the provisions relating to peer professional opinion do not apply to a failure by a professional to give a warning, advice or other information regarding a risk of injury or death to a person, which of course was the very issue in Rogers v Whitaker. You will recall that it was not suggested in Rogers v Whitaker that the Bolam rule should not apply in cases involving negligent diagnosis or methods of treatment. All the legislation appears to have done is to raise the bar of the Bolam rule when it applies, from a practice that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, to one which is widely accepted. Causation To succeed in an action for negligence it is not sufficient to prove an act of negligence, constituting a breach of the duty of care. It is necessary to show that it caused the damage in question. The law's treatment of causation differs from its treatment in science or philosophy. The law is not concerned to explain, as science does, physical phenomena by reference to conditions and occurrences. The law is concerned with ascribing, ex post facto, personal responsibility. It had been accepted at the trial in Rogers v Whitaker that the patient would not have undergone surgery had she been warned of the risk of 7 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5O Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5O(3). Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5O(4). Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5P.6 6. sympathetic ophthalmia. Two conclusions relevant to the approach of the law to proof of causation follow from this. In the first place, she would not in fact have suffered the injury but for the failure to warn. Secondly, she would not have been prepared to take the risk of loss of her sight. In these circumstances there is no reason why the practitioner should not be held liable for the failure to warn, when a warning would have avoided this consequence. As this indicates, the question of causation is approached by the common law in two steps. The first enquiry is as to causation in fact. It is an historical enquiry, as to how the injury or harm suffered came about. It looks to the causae sine qua non the factors without which the damage would not have occurred to provide the necessary connection between a negligent act and injury. If the negligent act is a necessary condition for the event giving rise to injury, it is a cause in fact. This translates to the "but for" test. Applied negatively, it asks whether the injury would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligence. If the damage would have occurred notwithstanding the negligent act or omission, the act or omission is not a cause. It has been said 11 that courts throughout the world agree that the relation of necessity between breach and outcome, expressed as the "but for" test, is the one the law should designate as causal. The second enquiry is whether, regardless of factual causation, a defendant should be held legally responsible for his or her breach of duty. This is a purely legal question, involving policy concerns and, to an extent, a value judgment. It may involve consideration of the degree of connection between breach and injury. In most cases it will be obvious that a defendant should be held liable for a breach which has contributed to an injury. The second enquiry assumes significance in more difficult cases. The two enquiries operate in this way: if the breach did in fact contribute to the injury, should the defendant be held legally responsible for it? The Civil Liability Act does not ignore the topic of causation, but made no real change to the common law. It does not depart from the two tests applied by the courts, which the Act calls "factual causation" and "scope of liability". The High Court has observed that the first stage of the statutory test involves 11 Stapleton, "Reflections on Common Sense Causation in Australia", in Degeling, Edelman and Goudkamp (eds), Torts in Commercial Law, (2011) 331 at 338.7 7. "nothing more or less than the application of a 'but for' test of causation" 12. And so far as concerns the second enquiry, the Court said that the statutory provisions do not displace the methodology of the common law 13. The tests of causation may seem straightforward enough. The difficulty arises in their application to the facts of particular cases. In cases where it is alleged that there has been a failure to warn of one or more material risks inherent in a proposed treatment, the Court has explained 14 that the question of factual causation is largely governed by what the patient would have chosen to do. The Court identified three factual scenarios as illustrative of past cases 15. In the first, the patient would have chosen to undergo the treatment even if warned of all material risks. Here there can be no finding of factual causation, because physical injury associated with the risk which materialised would have occurred even if the patient was warned; the second is where it is found that the patient would have chosen not to have treatment if warned. Rogers v Whitaker falls into this category. Where the patient has suffered injury, a finding of causation can be made without difficulty. But for the failure to warn, the patient would not have been exposed to the risk which materialised; the third example is more problematic. It refers to the circumstance where the patient would have chosen not to undergo treatment at this time. Here the nature of the risk remains the same. This scenario can only arise in an unusual circumstance where the likelihood of injury can be said to be different at different times, by reason of some variable factor affecting the outcomes. An example of the last scenario is provided by the decision in Chappel v Hart 16. In this case, an ear, nose and throat surgeon performed an operation with all due care and skill, but the patient's oesophagus was perforated in the 12 Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 383 [16] Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 385 [22]. Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 383 [17]. Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 384 [18]-[20]. (1998) 195 CLR 232; [1998] HCA 55.8 8. process. An infection developed and damaged the laryngeal nerve, which led to paralysis of the right vocal chord. The patient had specifically asked about the risk of injury to her voice. The specialist mentioned the risk of perforation, but not the risk of complicating infections. There was some evidence that the chance of perforation bore some relationship to the degree of skill of the surgeon, but the risk of infection was extremely rare. The patient said that had she been warned, she would not have undergone the surgery when she did and would have waited to engage the most experienced surgeon. Could it be said that "but for" the failure to warn, the patient would not have suffered the infection consequent upon the perforation? It was generally accepted that the patient's condition was such that surgery would inevitably be required. At most, therefore, the failure to warn put the patient into surgery at an earlier time. The Court was divided on this question. A majority of the Court held the surgeon liable on the basis of the patient's evidence that had she been warned of the risk she would have waited and obtained the most experienced surgeon. But this reasoning exposed an evidentiary difficulty. As the judges in the minority pointed out, it is up to the person claiming, the patient, to show that this would have likely made a difference. There was no evidence that other surgeons could have performed the procedure with greater care and skill and there was no evidence that a surgeon would never perforate the oesophagus. To hold the defendant surgeon liable would seem to involve a reversal of the onus of proof. The second enquiry of causation does not appear to have assumed much importance in the decision. However, it might be seen to identify the difficulty in holding the surgeon liable. It would ask: why should the surgeon be held liable for the materialisation of an extremely rare risk of infection? Should he be liable for failing to warn of a risk of this kind? The second case to which I will refer, which explained the approach to be taken to both enquiries, is Wallace v Kam. By the time of this decision the Civil Liability Act had come into operation. Relevantly, the Act does two things. It restates the requirement of the common law that the person claiming always bears the onus of proving any fact relevant to causation 17. This provision may have been a response to Chappel v Hart. The Act also 18 rejects use of self-serving evidence by plaintiffs in favour of a hypothetical assessment of what the person would or would not have done. It left the courts to determine this question. The courts have at any rate usually discounted selfserving evidence as inherently unreliable and have looked to objective factors, 17 Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5E. 18 Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5D(3).9 9. such as whether the treatment was inevitable or not, in order to determine whether a person would have undertaken it and any attendant risks. In Wallace v Kam, the patient was not warned of two risks inherent in the treatment proposed: bilateral femoral neurapraxia, resulting from lying face down on the operating table for an extended period; and a one-in-twenty chance of permanent and catastrophic paralysis resulting from damage to the spinal nerves. The patient suffered neurapraxia, but not paralysis. It was argued for the patient that liability could arise from failure to warn of all the risks, no matter which materialised. If he had been warned of the risk of paralysis he would not have had the surgery. On this argument it would be enough for a conclusion of factual causation that there be a failure to advise of the risk. It does not need to be the risk that eventuates. But that is to misunderstand both the test of factual causation and the further question of legal policy. The first is concerned with what caused the injury which resulted and the second asks whether the defendant should be held liable for the materialisation of the risk of that injury. The limitation of relying only on factual causal inquiry was explained by the High Court by way of an example often referred to in this context 19. A mountaineer is negligently advised by his doctor that his knee is fit to make a difficult climb. He makes the climb, which he would not have made if properly advised about his knee, only to be injured in an avalanche. His injury is a foreseeable consequence of mountaineering, but has nothing to do with his knee. Why should the doctor be held responsible for all the risks inherent in mountain climbing? With respect to the second, legal, enquiry of causation, the Court identified as relevant the particular damage the patient had suffered, because that is what the law compensates for. The patient suffered neurapraxia. The Court considered that the patient would most likely have regarded the risk of neurapraxia as acceptable. Why should the doctor be held liable for the materialisation of a risk which the patient was prepared to take? The patient's action failed. Novel cases of damages This brings me to the question of the type of damage which is recognised by the law of negligence. Damage, in the sense of injury or harm suffered, is the gist of, and essential to, an action for negligence. "Damage" in this sense is different from "damages", which refers to the money which is awarded to compensate for the injury or harm. 19 See Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375 at 386 [24]; see authorities referred to in fn 38.10 10. To determine whether, and the extent to which, a person has suffered damage, the law looks to the position of the person before and after the occurrence of the injury or harm caused by the negligent act. Generally speaking, in the law of negligence damage may be quantifiable injury or harm to a person, to property or to a person's interests. In cases of medical negligence it will usually be bodily injury or harm. In the last 10 years or so there have been three cases before the High Court which have challenged accepted notions of damage. The first question for the Court was whether the damage fell within a category already recognised by the common law. If it did not, could and should the common law be extended to recognise such damage? Once again, we are in the territory of legal policy. A court such as the High Court is responsible for developments in the Australian common law. Developments in a system which relies on precedent what is learned or distilled from case to case tend to be incremental. That is because of the nature of the system and the concern of the law to at least have the appearance of coherence and certainty. New directions have to be explicable by reference to established principles which inhere in actions such as those for negligence. Arguments which seek to alter the elements of the cause of action or their relationship to each other are carefully scrutinised. In two of the three cases, novel claims of damage were advanced, but did not succeed. One of the cases, Tabet v Gett 20, involved a child who had suffered severe, irreversible brain damage. By the time the appeal reached the High Court it was accepted by the parties that the treating doctor at the hospital should have ordered a scan at an earlier time. It would have revealed a brain tumour. Lawyers acting for the child recognised that there were problems with causation in her case. The evidence did not establish the necessary connection between the delay in treatment, which resulted from the failure to order a scan, and the subsequent brain damage. It could not be said on the balance of probabilities that "but for" the delay, the child would not have suffered brain damage. The lawyers turned their attention to another kind of damage. They argued that she had suffered a loss of a kind different from the brain injury. Because of the delay in diagnosing her condition, she had suffered the loss of the possibility of a better medical outcome, they contended. 20 (2010) 240 CLR 537; [2010] HCA 12.11 11. Characterising the damage in this way still could not overcome problems with evidence of causation. At an evidentiary level there is always a degree of speculation necessarily involved in accepting that there would have been a better outcome if a patient had received better advice. There were other matters of principle at stake as well. A chance is only a possibility. In civil actions such as those for negligence, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. It is necessary for a plaintiff to show, on the balance of probabilities, that damage would not have occurred had the doctor not been negligent. To accommodate the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome as compensable damage, the court would have to lower the standard of proof in all actions for negligence, from a probability to a chance. Framing the damage as loss of a "chance" adverts to the fact that what is involved is possibilities rather than probabilities. The concept of causation would also have to be redefined, to accommodate a chance. These were large steps which could have far-reaching effects. The Court did not consider that there was reason shown why, as a matter of policy, it should make these fundamental changes to the law. This decision may have been a relief to doctors in Australia, and their insurers, given that the chance of mishap is inherent in most medical procedures. Difficult questions were also raised about the concept of "damage" in the second case, Harriton v Stephens 21. An action was brought on behalf of a child who had been born with congenital abnormalities caused by the rubella virus contracted by her mother during pregnancy. The virus was not diagnosed by the mother's doctor. It was accepted that had the mother been informed of the presence of the virus and the risk of abnormalities she would have terminated the pregnancy. To say that a person has suffered damage is to invite a comparison between what would have been and what now is. A simple example, such as might arise in a case involving a motor vehicle accident, is the comparison between a pain-free, unimpaired person before a negligent act and a person with a fractured limb having limited movement after. The child's lawyers sought to demonstrate that she had suffered damage by using a comparison of a different kind. It involved the child's condition now, being disabled, and the circumstance which would have followed had her mother been advised of the presence of the virus and terminated the pregnancy. But this was to compare the state of the child as at the time of the case with a state of not being born. The High Court held that a comparison which involves non-existence is impossible to accept. This might be thought to involve an element of moral philosophy. It is probably sufficient to observe that the comparison contended for could not logically prove damage, as a person cannot complain that they should not exist. 21 (2006) 226 CLR 52 [2006] HCA 15.12 12. In the third case, Cattanach v Melchior 22, the plaintiff was successful. A child had been born after a failed sterilisation procedure. The parents claimed as damages the reasonable cost of raising and maintaining an unplanned child. The question was whether the parents had suffered damage by these costs. It was argued that the parents could not be said to have suffered harm or damage, given the immeasurable benefits which they admittedly derived from the child. On this view there was no real loss or damage. The argument had received some judicial support in England. But as the High Court considered, it could hardly be said that the birth had no effect upon the parents. The mother suffered pain and suffering in childbirth and could be compensated for that. The parents also had to pay for the medical and hospital costs of the birth. Logically, there was nothing to prevent compensation for the effect upon their other interests, constituted by the burden of responsibility which had been imposed upon them by the unplanned birth. The costs of the child's upbringing were allowed. Conclusion Each of the medical negligence cases I have discussed today has contributed in some way to the development of the general law relating to negligence. Development in this sense is not to be equated with an expansion of liability, or a contraction of it for that matter. It refers to the way each case, decided by reference to the facts relevant to it, adds to the body of knowledge which may later become distilled as a rule, a test or a legal principle. Problems which arise in connection with one or more of the elements of the action are worked out. Development, by way of further statement, clarification or explanation of the law, tends to be incremental. In deciding difficult cases of this kind the elements of the action must be viewed not separately, but as interconnected and working together. Thus the first case stated the duty owed as a duty to warn of material risks. Identifying the duty in that way also facilitates the determination of causation, based on what risks a patient would likely have taken, or not taken. This was picked up and explained in the later cases. In one of them, the resolution of the question of causation brought into focus the connection necessary between the particular injury suffered, and the risk not warned about. The cases concerned with the nature of damage itself show that the Court will consider the changes which would be necessary with respect to the action for negligence should the notion of damage be enlarged. And they show that the Court will be cautious about change where coherence in the law may be lost. The cases discussed did not come to the attention of the High Court for decision by chance. As many of you would know, appeals to the Court are 22 (2003) 215 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 58. View more
LEGALWISE SEMINARS Perth, 13 May 2009 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE DUTY OF CARE OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONER Geoffrey Hancy BJuris (Hons) LLB (Hons) BEc LLM Email: geoff@hancy.net Web: www.hancy.net Introduction 1 I More information Setting the Standards for Medical Negligence: The Bolam test post Rogers v Whitaker.
Setting the Standards for Medical Negligence: The Bolam test post Rogers v Whitaker. The High Court, in Rogers v Whitaker 1, rejected the Bolam 2 test of medical negligence, at least with respect to the More information CAUSATION UNDER THE CLA
CAUSATION UNDER THE CLA Causation under the Civil Liability Act Introduction Over the years the courts have toyed with the concept of causation, and how it should be determined. Following the Ipp report More information Duty of Care. Kung Fu Instructor in Training Program. Shaolin Guardian Network
Duty of Care Kung Fu Instructor in Training Program Shaolin Guardian Network Negligence This civil wrong is most importance to all professional groups, as far as being a source of potential legal action. More information This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland More information Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests.
Tipp FM Legal Slot 29 th May 2012 Medical Negligence John M. Lynch, Principal Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests. Firstly, what is Medical More information MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ANNUAL CASE REVIEW MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 2009/2010. Ian Butcher, barrister 1
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE ANNUAL CASE REVIEW MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE 2009/2010 Ian Butcher, barrister 1 GETT V TABET (2010) 265 ALR 227 No damages for loss of chance for personal injury following negligence Need for More information In Queensland and Western Australia, there is no qualification that the peer professional opinion must be widely accepted in Australia.
PEER PROFESSIONAL OPINION ITS IMPACT ON MEDICAL CLAIMS By Sarah Vallance Following the release of the Final Report of the Review of the Law of Negligence in September 2002 (the Ipp Report), all Australian More information Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland
Legal Action / Claiming Compensation in Scotland This help sheet explains your legal rights if you have been injured as a result of medical treatment and the steps involved in seeking compensation through More information Causation for nursing
Causation for nursing Abstract This article considers the application of the tests of factual and legal causation to cases of medical negligence. It is argued that in light of the recent development of More information Chapter 2: Negligence: The Duty of Care General Principles and Public Policy
Chapter 2: Negligence: The Duty of Care General Principles and Public Policy Outline 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] 2.3 The three-stage test: foreseeability, proximity and fair, just More information MEDICO/LEGAL ASSOCIATION ALICE SPRINGS 2002 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
MEDICO/LEGAL ASSOCIATION ALICE SPRINGS 2002 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE The World Changes In considering what some have called the crisis in medical negligence we need to bear in mind that there has been a large More information Medical Negligence. A client s guide
Medical Negligence A client s guide What is medical negligence? This note is intended to give you a broad outline about medical negligence (sometimes called clinical negligence) cases. It is not a substitute More information SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY. DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120
SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY DISCUSSION PAPER No. 120 A RESPONSE BY THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS NOVEMBER 2002 The executive committee would like to acknowledge More information Medical Negligence. A client s guide. head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience and quality. The Legal 500
www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.personalinjury.ffw.com Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A client s guide head and shoulders above the rest in terms of skills, experience More information Unintentional Torts - Definitions
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person. More information Legal Practitioners Negligence Liability for Claim Investigation and Advice
Legal Practitioners Negligence Liability for Claim Investigation and Advice Nigam v Harm (No 2) [2011] WASCA 221, Western Australia Court of Appeal, 18 October 2011 It is without doubt that solicitors More information Professional Negligence
1239272 - BCIT 1 Professional Negligence Jeremy T. Lovell Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP 1239272 - BCIT 2 Overview Professional negligence law in context Negligence law in general Duty of care Standard of More information Public Liability Insurance
Public Liability Insurance Canoeing Ireland provides Public Liability Insurance (also referred to as Third Party Liability Insurance) for individuals registered with Canoeing Ireland against liability More information LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001
1 LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of this Bill is to address the impact of the decision of the High More information Medical Negligence. A guide for clients. The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. The Legal 500
www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 www.ffw.com/personalinjury Freephone 0800 358 3848 Medical Negligence A guide for clients The team provides a first class service at all levels of experience. More information 15 TH EUROPE PACIFIC CONFERENCE
15 TH EUROPE PACIFIC CONFERENCE Cortina D Ampezzo Italy 9-16 January 2011 Update On Medical Negligence With Particular Reference To The Recent High Court Decision In Tabet v. Gett Christopher T. Barry More information 1. Introduction to Negligence
1. Introduction to Negligence You should be familiar with the following areas: l how to prove negligence l legislative reform to the law of negligence INTRODUCTION A tort exists to protect rights. The More information CASE COMMENT. by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research
CASE COMMENT by Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research On June 29, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada released Clements v. Clements, [2012] 7 W.W.R. 217, 2012 SCC 32, its latest in a series of judgements More information BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 8: THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. Outline the elements of the tort of negligence. The elements of the tort More information Medicolegal Problems Facing Breast Radiologists: How to Avoid Them
Medicolegal Problems Facing Breast Radiologists: How to Avoid Them Dr Philip Zack Medicolegal Adviser Brighton - British Society of Breast Radiology Conference 10/11/2014 Total number of reported CNST More information APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON A NATIONALLY CONSISTENT BASIS
APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON A NATIONALLY CONSISTENT BASIS Implementation of the Panel's Recommendations A national response Recommendation 1 The Panel's recommendations should be incorporated More information Clinical Negligence: A guide to making a claim
: A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process More information Limitation of Liability
Limitation of Liability Submission to the Attorney-General (Western Australia) July 2000 The Institution of Engineers, Australia Institution of Engineers, Australia 11 National Circuit, Barton, ACT, 2604 More information Queensland. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Contents Page More information Case study analysis. Chair: Dr Liz Mullins Senior Risk Consultant, Avant
Case study analysis Chair: Dr Liz Mullins Senior Risk Consultant, Avant Panel members -- Dr Craig Lilienthal -- Kerrie Chambers HWL Ebsworth Lawyers -- Bill Madden Slater and Gordon Cases for discussion More information FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION
Aaron L. Sherriff FIRE ON THE ICE: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE REGARDING CAUSATION 2 Aaron L. Sherriff TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CGL POLICY... 3 II. NEGLIGENCE... 3 III. MR. HANKE... 4 More information (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage.
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage More information , FOCUS ON CAUSATION. The hospital did not serve any expert medical evidence 'liabilty The "plaintiff submitted that but for the hospital's
, FOCUS ON CAUSATION.,~.t~'! ì I ',' medical negligence cases where causation has been considered and discusses why the plaintiffs succeeded or failed in respect of This article proving focuses legal on More information B U R T & D A V I E S PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS -
TAC COMMON LAW CLAIMS - DEFENCES In a common law damages claim, the person who brings the claim is called the Plaintiff. The person against who the claim is brought is called the Defendant. For the Plaintiff More information Chapter 4 Crimes (Review)
Chapter 4 Crimes (Review) On a separate sheet of paper, write down the answer to the following Q s; if you do not know the answer, write down the Q. 1. What is a crime? 2. There are elements of a crime. More information many activities to be undertaken that would not otherwise take place, and is an effective mechanism for pooling and transferring risk.
9 March 2015 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Submitted by email: redress@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au Dear Sir/Madam CONSULTATION PAPER: REDRESS AND CIVIL LITIGATION More information 12 May 2014. Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001. By Email to: info@alrc.gov.
12 May 2014 Geoff Bowyer T 03 9607 9497 F 03 9607 5270 president@liv.asn.au Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 By Email to: info@alrc.gov.au More information Queensland. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010
Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 Act No. 24 of 2010 Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 More information )LQDQFLDO$VVXUDQFH,VVXHV RI(QYLURQPHQWDO/LDELOLW\
)LQDQFLDO$VVXUDQFH,VVXHV RI(QYLURQPHQWDO/LDELOLW\ ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ %\ 3URI'U0LFKDHO*)DXUH//0 DQG 0U'DYLG*ULPHDXG Maastricht University and European Centre for Tort and Insurance Law (ECTIL) Final version More information KEEPING ABREAST OF IMPLANTS RUWENA KHAN
KEEPING ABREAST OF IMPLANTS RUWENA KHAN Introduction The origins of plastic surgery, a medical speciality concerned with the correction or restoration of form and function, can be traced back to 800BC More information Contents COLLINGBOURNE HENNAHLAW. A GUIDE TO Clinical Negligence
A GUIDE TO Clinical Negligence A GUIDE TO Clinical Negligence The aim of this booklet is to provide some assistance in the field of clinical negligence. Contents 02 Introduction 03 Clinical Negligence More information Information. Considering a clinical negligence claim. What gives rise to a clinical negligence claim? What about the issue of causation?
Information You are asking advice from Thomson Snell & Passmore about a possible clinical negligence claim. Such claims are complex and it would greatly assist your understanding of the issues if you read More information Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Bill 2002
Passed by both Houses New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Bill 2002 Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22 2 4 Consequential More information Clinical Negligence. by Janet C Kelly Midwifery Lecturer
Clinical Negligence by Janet C Kelly Midwifery Lecturer 1 Aim To give an insight into the concept of clinical negligence and its relation to children s nursing 2 Objectives 1. To explain the concept and More information Clinical Negligence. Investigating Your Claim
www.lees.co.uk Clinical Negligence Investigating Your Claim Lees Solicitors LLP 44/45 Hamilton Square Birkenhead Wirral CH41 5AR Tel: 0151 647 9381 Fax: 0151 649 0124 e-mail: newclaim@lees.co.uk 1 The More information Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other More information Bar Vocational Course. Legal Research Task
Bar Vocational Course Legal Research Task Below is an example of a 2,500 word legal research piece which is typical of the task required as part of the Bar Vocational Course. This particular piece is on More information General comments. Turning to the specific questions: 1. The NHS Redress Scheme
Making Amends the CMO s proposals for reforming the approach to clinical negligence in the NHS. Response to the consultation document by The Royal College of Surgeons of England OCTOBER 2003 Response of More information WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth Criminal Injuries Compensation By Helen Porter, Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation. INTRODUCTION In this More information MONTGOMERY V LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD ([2015] UKSC 11]) Hamish Dunlop, Barrister at 3PB Barristers
3PB Barristers THE PATIENT S RIGHT OF AUTONOMY MONTGOMERY V LANARKSHIRE HEALTH BOARD ([2015] UKSC 11]) by Hamish Dunlop, Barrister at 3PB Barristers 1. On 11 th March 2015, the Supreme Court gave their More information WELFARE OF ANAESTHETISTS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP COMMUNICATION AND CONSENT: YOUR BEST DEFENCE
WELFARE OF ANAESTHETISTS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP Resource Document 23 (2011) COMMUNICATION AND CONSENT: YOUR BEST DEFENCE INTRODUCTION Recent studies, both in Australia and overseas, have confirmed that More information A Guide To Claiming Compensation For Clinical Negligence
A Guide To Claiming Compensation For Clinical Negligence Introduction In order to bring a claim for Clinical Negligence, it is necessary to establish that the Doctor or Nurse involved in your medical treatment More information Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts
Canadian Law 12 Negligence and Other Torts What is Negligence? Someone who commits a careless act that creates harm to another person is negligent. Over the past several years, negligence has become the More information Medical injuries under national dis ability care and s upport s chemes. Jonathan Cohen, Linda Satchwell and Adrian Gould Taylor Fry Pty Ltd
Medical injuries under national dis ability care and s upport s chemes Jonathan Cohen, Linda Satchwell and Adrian Gould Taylor Fry Pty Ltd B ackground October 2006: NSW Lifetime care and support scheme More information Compensation Claims. Contents
Compensation Claims Contents Employers' duties What kind of claims may be made? The tort of negligence Tort of breach of statutory duty Civil liability exclusions Conditions to be met for breach of statutory More information CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ARTICLE: THE DETECTION & TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER & CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ARTICLE: THE DETECTION & TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER & CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF LIFE EXPECTANCY IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES Reports relating to the detection and treatment of breast cancer More information Nelton Forsythe instructed by Forsythe and Forsythe for the claimant
[2012] JMSC Civ 85 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA CIVIL DIVISION CLAIM NO. 2007 HCV 05051 BETWEEN PAULA WHYTE CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FIRST DEFENDANT AND SOUTH EAST REGIONAL HEALTH More information Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011
Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for More information The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
QBE European Operations The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Issues Forum The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 Issues Forum Contents History 1 A time of reform 2 Strict liability 2 The More information ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND
ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES WITH LITIGATION IN MIND Introduction The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to concepts used in the defense of construction related lawsuits and to suggest how More information CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY CLAUSES. Tony Kulukovski Thompson Cooper Lawyers 21 November 2011
CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY CLAUSES Tony Kulukovski Thompson Cooper Lawyers 21 November 2011 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Rodney James Smith & Anor [2000] NSWCA 55 Smith was injured on a construction site More information Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 (19 November 1992) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ROGERS v. WHITAKER [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479 F.C. 92/045 Negligence HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mason More information What is my claim worth?
What is my claim worth? This is probably the most common and important question asked by a Claimant pursuing a personal injury claim. At the end of the day, it is the recovery of compensation for the injury More information Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008)
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008) Introduction: Claims for accidents on building sites usually involve multiple parties. There are often contracts between the parties More information TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK
TORT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 DEFENCES 6 Consent (Or Volenti Non Fit Injuria) 6 Illegtality (or Ex Trupi Causa) 7 Contributory Negiligence 8 NEGLIGENCE 11 Duty of Care 11 More information Core Super MySuper. Insurance & Other Important Information 3 August 2015
Core Super MySuper Insurance & Other Important Information 3 August 2015 As a Core Super MySuper member you have Income Protection as well as Life and Total and Permanent Disablement [TPD] Insurance available More information Clinical negligence. Grounds
Clinical negligence Clinical negligence occurs when the care or treatment the Claimant received from a health service provider was below the standard that is expected. This test was established in the More information In order to prove negligence the Claimant must establish the following:
Introduction A wealth of law exists to provide compensation to people who have suffered injuries, both physical and psychological, following an accident. This fact sheet provides a very brief guide to More information PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants More information Which of the following do you think could be liable to pay compensation?
ACTIVITY 3 A patient is admitted into an NHS trust hospital for surgery to repair a hernia. Unfortunately, by mistake, a swab is left inside the patient who has to return to theatre for a second operation. More information The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance
PRODUCT LIABILITY Product Liability Litigation The Effect of Product Safety Regulatory Compliance By Kenneth Ross Product liability litigation and product safety regulatory activities in the U.S. and elsewhere More information Case Survey: Villines v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center 2011 Ark. App. 506 UALR Law Review Published Online Only
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS HOLDS THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS IMPROPER WHEN QUESTIONS OF MATERIAL FACT ARRISE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS In Villines v. North Arkansas Regional Medical Center, 1 the More information Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme
Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Cth) Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Inquiry into the More information Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service County Court Rules Committee Consultative Document on Scale Costs
Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service County Court Rules Committee Consultative Document on Scale Costs A response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers 30 September 2011 Page 1 of 13 The More information THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS
THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS Introduction In professional negligence proceedings against a solicitor, the court s aim is to determine what amount of money would put the plaintiff in the position he would More information GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test: More information Employer Liability for Consequences of Teacher Stress House of Lords Decision
Employer Liability for Consequences of Teacher Stress House of Lords Decision Macrossans Lawyers, Brisbane, Queensland In Barber v. Somerset County Council the House of Lords recently delivered an important More information Submissions on Civil Liability Reform
Submissions on Civil Liability Reform The Coalition of British Columbia Businesses October 2002 Introduction: The following submissions are made on behalf of the Coalition of British Columbia Businesses. More information Accidents to Children, Students or Visitors
Procedure DECD14/14758 Accidents to Children, Students or Visitors Summary This procedure is to advise staff of the matters surrounding the management of accidents to children, students or visitors on More information NSW STATE LEGAL CONFERENCE SESSION 36 HEALTH LAW 31 MARCH 2006: 1.30pm 5.00pm M.J. WALSH BDS, Dip. Law. A. Overview
NSW STATE LEGAL CONFERENCE SESSION 36 HEALTH LAW 31 MARCH 2006: 1.30pm 5.00pm M.J. WALSH BDS, Dip. Law A. Overview This paper outlines issues to be examined from a dental/legal aspect in a 20 minute presentation More information 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. ACTION ITEMS 7 4. SUPPORTING COMMENTS ON THE ACTION ITEMS 11 5. LAWYERS AND LEGAL ADVICE 19
Table of contents Page 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. ACTION ITEMS 7 4. SUPPORTING COMMENTS ON THE ACTION ITEMS 11 5. LAWYERS AND LEGAL ADVICE 19 6. MODIFICATION TO THE COMCARE WEBSITE 24 More information Professional liability of accountants and auditors
Professional liability of accountants and auditors This factsheet provides guidance on the liability for professional negligence which members may incur because of an act or default by them (or by their More information Expert Medical Evidence: The Australian Medical Association s Position
Expert Medical Evidence: The Australian Medical Association s Position The Australian Medical Association and its members have had an increasing interest in this field for many years, with the level of More information TORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL SINGAPORE
TORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL SINGAPORE Table of Contents Sources Used...4 1. INTRODUCTION TO NEGLIGENCE...5 2. DUTY OF CARE...6 2.1 Introduction & Development of Duty of Care...6 3. DUTY OF CARE- Kinds of Harm...10 More information Project title. The true cost of Clinical Negligence? Rachel Brown. Date Month 2014 17 November 2015. Slater and Gordon Limited 2014
Project title The true cost of Clinical Negligence? Date Month 2014 17 November 2015 Rachel Brown 1 The true cost of clinical negligence? To a patient: pain, suffering, loss of amenity. Loss of life, independence, More information MAURICE BLACKBURN LAWYERS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE NSW
MAURICE BLACKBURN LAWYERS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE NSW 02 MAURICE BLACKBURN YOU RE WORTH FIGHTING FOR. If you are hurt, injured, or are facing an unfair situation, you and your family shouldn t have to suffer. More information RECENT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES By Judge Bryan C. Dixon 1. MERE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH TREATING DOCTOR DOES NOT ESTABLISH DUTY TO PATIENT
RECENT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES By Judge Bryan C. Dixon 1. MERE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH TREATING DOCTOR DOES NOT ESTABLISH DUTY TO PATIENT Jennings v. Badgett, 2010 OK 7 Facts: Plaintiffs are parents More information LIMITATION UPDATE. 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation More information FACT PATTERN ONE. The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn [2009] A.J. No. 308
FACT PATTERN ONE The following facts are based on the case of Bedard v. Martyn [2009] A.J. No. 308 The infant plaintiff developed a large blood clot in his brain at some time either before or during the More information Referred to Committee on Judiciary. SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to certain civil actions involving negligence. (BDR 3-954)
S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR ROBERSON MARCH, Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to certain civil actions involving negligence. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: More information Professional Negligence A Quick Guide!
This publication is written as a general guide only. It is not intended to contain definitive legal Broadly speaking professional negligence occurs where a professional such as a solicitor, surveyor, doctor More information LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances More information EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY AND THE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2013 By Justin Valentine Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 amends section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work More information Senate Bill No. 292 Senator Roberson
Senate Bill No. 292 Senator Roberson CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to civil actions; providing immunity from civil actions for a board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of a charter school More information APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: UNIFORM APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT AS COMPARED TO RESTATEMENT THIRD, TORTS
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: UNIFORM APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT AS COMPARED TO RESTATEMENT THIRD, TORTS Presented by: Douglas G. Houser Bullivant Houser Bailey, P.C. Portland, Oregon -2- Where More information THE SECOND HARBOUR TUNNEL. A case study illustrating recent issues in construction insurance
THE SECOND HARBOUR TUNNEL A case study illustrating recent issues in construction insurance Andrea Martignoni, Partner Malcolm Stephens, Senior Associate Allens Arthur Robinson Insurance Forum: Wednesday More information Thebe v Mbewe t/a Checkpoint Laboratory Services [2000] JOL 7142 (ZS)
Thebe v Mbewe t/a Checkpoint Laboratory Services [2000] JOL 7142 (ZS) Reported in (Butterworths) Not reported in any Butterworths printed series. Case No: SC38 / 2000 Judgment Date(s): 22 / 05 / 2000 Hearing More information PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation More information Global Guide to Competition Litigation Poland