Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Traceability : retracing law and public policy on measurement standards

This presentation outlines key aspects of public policy in broad terms insofar as they relate to establishment, implementation and compliance with legal measurement standards. It refers in particular to traceability of a legal measurement unit from its source in a single international standard as a compliance issue. It comments on accreditation of legal measurement and liability concerned with errors in measurement.

Informed consent : the review of the law of negligence and the utility of reference to NHMRC guidelines

Although rarely referred to in litigation in the years that have followed the Ipp Review Report, there may well be some merit in more frequent judicial reference to the NHMRC guidelines for medical practitioners on providing information to patients 2004.

Insurance and the law of negligence : an influential or irrelevant persuader?

This article examines, from both within and outside the context of compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, the different academic and judicial perspectives regarding the relevance of insurance to the imposition of negligence liability via the formulation of legal principle. In particular, the utility of insurance in setting the standard of care held owing by a learner driver to an instructor in Imbree v McNeilly is analysed and the implications of this High Court decision, in light of current jurisprudential argument and for other principles of negligence liability, namely claimant vulnerability, are considered. It concludes that ultimately one’s stance as to the relevance, or otherwise, of insurance to the development of the common law of negligence will be predominately influenced by normative views of torts’ function as an instrument of corrective or distributive justice.

What’s law got to do with it?: Medical negligence, causation and the use of policy

In a medical negligence context, and under the causation provisions enacted pursuant to Civil Liability Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions, the normative concept of “scope of liability” requires a consideration of whether or not and why a medical practitioner should be responsible for a patient’s harm. As such, it places a limit on the extent to which practitioners are deemed liable for a breach of the duty of care owed by them, in circumstances where a legal factual connection between that breach and the causation of a patient’s harm has already been shown. It has been said that a determination of causation requires ‘the identification and articulation of an evaluative judgement by reference to “the purposes and policy of the relevant part of the law”’: Wallace v Kam (2013) 297 ALR 383, 388. Accordingly, one of the normative factors falling within scope of liability is an examination of the content and purpose of the rule or duty of care violated – that is, its underlying policy and whether this supports an attribution of legal responsibility upon a practitioner. In this context, and with reference to recent jurisprudence, this paper considers: the policy relevant to a practitioner’s duty of care in each of the areas of diagnosis, treatment and advice; how this has been used to determine an appropriate scope of liability for the purpose of the causation inquiry in medical negligence claims; and whether such an approach is problematic for medical standards or decision-making.

Defamation : is that a fly in my soup?

In a recent case the High Court considered whether a restaurant review was defamatory.

Duty of police and ambulance services : what happens when the plaintiff refuses treatment?

In a recent case the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the duty of care owed by ambulance and police officers, issues concerning breach and causation and the practical effect of the exclusion of the plaintiff's evidence.

Liability of principal contractor for independent subcontractor considered by the High Court

Case note of Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 258 ALR 673 ----- In Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 83 ALJR 1086 ; 258 ALR 673 the High Court considered the liability of a principal contractor for the negligence of independent subcontractors on a building site. In its decision, the court considered the nature and the scope of the duty owed by principals to independent contractors.

Recent cases on intoxication

Intoxication of a plaintiff raises many issues in a negligence action – duty of care, breach of duty, causation and the defence of contributory negligence. Recently intoxication has been examined by the Full Court of Tasmania in relation to duty and breach and by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in respect of causation and contributory negligence.

Foreseeability of pure economic loss and causation

In Bonny Glen Pty Ltd v Country Energy [2009] NSWCA 26 (24 February 2009) the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the pure economic loss suffered by the appellant was recoverable. However, rather than arguments as to whether the appellant was vulnerable and a member of an ascertainable class, whether the respondent had knowledge of the risk to the appellant and was in a position of control and considerations as to indeterminate liability as in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180, the arguments raised related to the foreseeability of the loss and causation.

Golf can be dangerous : be forewarned!

In Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 (20 May 2008) the plaintiff claimed for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by a golf ball during the course of a tournament. The plaintiff was a member of a group of four, playing in a two-day tournament at Indooroopilly Golf Club. All four players had teed off at the second hole of the course and when the defendant took his second shot; his ball struck one of the trees bordering the fairway and deflected, hitting the plaintiff who was waiting to take his third stroke. As the ball was in flight, the defendant had called out "Watch out Errol", or words to that effect, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injury to his eye, leaving his vision impaired. The plaintiff sued in negligence, alleging that by failing to shout "fore" as is traditionally done in golf, the defendant had failed to warn the appellant and this was a breach of their duty. The claim in negligence was dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court, holding that there had been no breach of the duty.

Australian torts laws

"Provides a comprehensive overview of the law of torts for law students. The legislative reform brought about by the IPP Committee recommendations are included and commented upon." -- Libraries Australia

High Court changes position on standard of care of learner drivers

Since the High Court decision of Cook v Cook (1986) 162 CLR 376, a person who voluntarily undertakes to instruct a learner driver of a motor vehicle is owed a lower standard of care than that owed to other road users. The standard of care was still expressed to be objective; however, it took into account the inexperience of the learner driver. Therefore, a person instructing a learner driver was owed a duty of care the standard being that of a reasonable learner driver. This ‘special relationship’ was said to exist because of the passenger’s knowledge of the driver’s inexperience and lack of skill. On 28 August 2008 the High Court handed down its decision in Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40, overruling Cook v Cook.