Personal injury in motor accident in NSW - procedural requirements under Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1988 (NSW)

In Hooper v Robinson [2002] QDC 080 (District Court of Queensland, D 4841 of 2001, McGill DCJ, 19.4.2002) McGill DCJ considered the application of the decision in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson [2000] 203 CLR 503 to notice requirements such as in s42 of NSW Motor Accident Insurance Act 1988 and concluded such provisions are now substantive.

More than a nuisance: personal injury under Rylands

Discusses, by reference to case law, whether damages for personal injury are recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher liability. Considers the issue by reference to a hypothetical scenario in which a claimant suffers personal injury as a result of a chemical leak from a factory for which the factory owner is not at fault. Considers claims based on diminution in amenity and for consequential loss.

Personal Injury Liability in Sport: Emerging Trends

Violent play during the course of a game or sport is not a new phenomenon; accompanying legal proceedings are. This article considers personal injury liability for injuries inflicted by a participant upon an opponent during a sporting pursuit. The jurisdictional focus is on England and Wales. The sporting emphasis of the article is on competitive, body contact games. The legal emphasis is on the tort of negligence. Analogous to the law of criminal assault, breach of "implied sporting consent" or the volenti of the claimant will be seen as central in application, as assessed through a number of objective criteria, including the skill level of the injuring party and whether that defendant was acting in "reckless disregard" of the claimant's safety. These criteria or evidential guidelines, which emerge from a careful doctrinal analysis of the relevant case law, are seen as crucial to the examination of the appropriate degree of care in negligence within the prevailing circumstances of sport. The article also searches for some theoretical coherency within the case law, premising it on Fletcher's idea of reciprocal risk-taking. In addition, the underlying policy-related issue of sport's social utility is discussed, as are practical matters relating to vicarious liability, insurance and the measure of damages for "lost sporting opportunity". Moreover, it will be shown that personal injury claims relating to sports participant liability now extend to a consideration of the duties of coaches, referees, sports governing bodies and schools. Finally, this article is set against the backdrop of an apparently spiralling "compensation culture" and the concomitant threat that that "blame culture" poses for the future promotion, operation and administration of sport.

An overview of liability and compensation for personal injury in China under the general principles of civil law

This article reviews the personal injury tort system in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Chinese torts law has a number of unique features. To begin with, it is quite new — the legal framework of torts law was established only in 1986. The unique features of the Chinese torts law also stem from its long and difficult evolution over nearly 40 years. Equally important has been the remarkable blend of influences that have shaped its current law — a mixture of socialist objectives, capitalist pragmatism, and feudal doctrines combined with jurisprudential models taken from a range of western civil codes and, more recently, the common law.

Part one of the article briefly analyses the most important features of the existing Chinese legal system. Part two provides a background to the enactment of the General Principles of Civil Law (GPCL), which incorporates Chinese torts law. The review looks at the development and drafting of the GPCL legislation, and the influences that guided the formulation of legal principles. Part three of the article provides an overview of the torts law provisions in the GPCL. Part four examines the law of personal injury established by the GPCL. Part five uses some case studies to illustrate the principles highlighted in the previous two parts and part six contains a brief conclusion and some pointers to the directions that Chinese torts law may take in the future.

Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury

This research program focused on perceptions of the appraisals and emotions involved in hurtful events in couple relationships. Study I tested the broad proposition that hurt feelings are elicited by relational transgressions that generally imply relational devaluation and that evoke a sense of personal injury by threatening positive mental models of self and/or others. Participants (N = 224) provided retrospective accounts of an experience of being hurt by a romantic partner. These accounts, together with expert judges' ratings, showed that most hurtful events involved relational transgressions that signal both relational devaluation and threat to positive mental models; however, relational devaluation was relatively unimportant in explaining the hurt associated with partners' distrust. A sense of injury emerged as the dominant theme in open-ended accounts of emotional reactions; however, other negative emotions also featured and were related to the type of event reported. The emotion terms generated in Study I were used as stimuli in a word-sorting task (Study 2). This study confirmed that many of the terms were perceived specifically as injury related, and shed further light on the link between appraisals and emotions. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Practice and Procedure - Proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries commenced before June 18, 2002

In Inglis v Connell [2003] QDC 029 the court considered s6(3) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in relation to the application of the Act. The conclusion reached was that the provision should be interpreted as providing that the requirements of the Act do not apply in respect of personal injury the subject of any proceeding commenced before June 18, 2002.

The association between attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle accidents and patient satisfaction: a study within a no-fault injury compensation system

This study set out to test the relationship between attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle accidents and satisfaction with personal injury compensation systems.

15 year old volens to BMX riding risks

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently heard a case that raised the defence of volenti on fit injuria. By a majority of 2:1 the court held in Leyden v Caboolture Shire Council [2007] QCA 134 (20 April 2007) that the defence of volenti was established and defeated the action in negligence for damages for personal injury. The facts of the case were quite simple. The plaintiff was 15 years old when he was injured at the Bluebell Park which was controlled and managed by the Caboolture Shire Council (the defendant). The park had a BMX track – built and maintained by the defendant. At trial it was held that although the defendant owed a duty of care to entrants, a duty was not owed to the plaintiff. The judge found that the plaintiff was different to other entrants who used facilities provided by a council in a public park. The plaintiff was not relying upon the defendant to provide a BMX track with jumps that were reasonably safe as the evidence was that the track was regularly altered by third parties and the plaintiff knew that. Therefore it was reasoned that the plaintiff was relying upon the ability of the third parties who modified the jump and his own ability to use it, not the ability of the defendant to provide a reasonably safe track (at [10]). The trial judge also held that if a duty was owed, the defence of volenti applied so as to defeat the claim for damages. This was based upon the evidence that the plaintiff knew of the modification of the jump by third parties and knew of the risk. It was held that the plaintiff ‘had the appropriate subjective appreciation of the risk’ (at [11]).

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld)

On 17 March 2010, the Civil Liability and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) was assented to.

Intent behind payments determines impact on assessment of damages

In Zheng v Cai (2009) 261 ALR 481 the High Court had to determine whether voluntary payments made to the appellant by a third party were to be taken into account when assessing a claim for damages for personal injury.

Volunteers 'piggy-backing' on their private insurance : an uncertain protection against liability

Volunteering is a very important part of life in Australia with an estimated 36% of the adult population volunteering in 2010. Voluntary work generates economic benefits, addresses community needs and develops the social networks that form the backbone of civil society. Without volunteers, many essential services would either cease to exist or become too expensive for many people to afford. These volunteers, who by definition are not in receipt of any remuneration for their work and services, are exposed to personal injury and to legal liability in the discharge of their functions. It is therefore appropriate that statutory protection is extended to volunteers and that volunteer organisations procure public liability and personal accident cover where possible. However, given the patchwork quilt of circumstances where statutory or institutional cover is available to volunteers and the existence of many and diverse exclusions, it is important to have regard also to what scope a volunteer may have to avail themselves of protection against liability for volunteering activity by relying upon their own personal insurance cover. This article considers the extent of private insurance cover and its availability to volunteers under home and contents insurance and under comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. The most common policies in the Australian market are examined and the uncertain nature of protection against liability afforded by these policies is discussed. This uncertainty could be reduced should the Federal Government through amendments to the Insurance Contracts Regulations standardise the circumstances and extent to which liability protection was afforded to an insured holding home and contents insurance and comprehensive motor vehicle insurance cover.