Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.

The Role of the Law in Communicating Patient Safety

This chapter considers the role of the law in communicating patient safety. Downie, Lahey, Ford, et al’s (2006) preventing, knowing and responding theoretical framework is adopted to classify the different elements of patient safety law. Rather than setting out all relevant patient safety laws in detail, this chapter highlights key legal strategies which are employed to: prevent the occurrence of patient safety incidents (preventing); support the discovery and open discussion of patient safety incidents when they do occur (knowing),; and guide responses after they occur (responding) (Downie, Lahey, Ford, et al 2006). The law is increasingly being invoked to facilitate open discussion of and communication surrounding patient safety. After highlighting some legal strategies used to communicate patient safety, two practice examples are presented. The practice examples highlight different aspects of patient safety law and are indicative of communication issues commonly faced in practice. The first practice example focuses on the role of the Ccoroner in communicating patient safety. This example highlights the investigative role of the law in relation to patient safety (knowing). It also showcases the preventing responding and preventing elements in respect of the significant number of communication errors that can occur in a multi-disciplinary, networked health system. The main focus of the second practice example is responding example illustrates how the law responds to health service providers’ and professionals’ miscommunication (and subsequent incidents) during treatment, however it also touches upon knowing and preventing.

Evaluation of the Red Light Camera Program and the Owner Onus Legislation

Red light cameras were introduced in Victoria in August 1983, with the intention of reducing the number of accidents that result from motorists disobeying red traffic signals at signalised intersections. Accident data from 46 treated and 46 control sites from 1981 to 1986 were analysed. The analysis indicated that red light camera use resulted in a reduction in the incidence of right angle accidents, and in the number of accident casualties. Legislation was introduced in March 1986 to place the onus for red light camera offences onto the vehicle owner. This legislation was intended to improve Police efficiency and therefore increase the number of red light cameras in operation. Data supplied by the Police indicated that these aims have beneficial road safety effects.

Free software and the law. Out of the frying pan and into the fire: How shaking up intellectual property suits competition law just fine

Free software is viewed as a revolutionary and subversive practice, and in particular has dealt a strong blow to the traditional conception of intellectual property law (although in its current form could be considered a 'hack' of IP rights). However, other (capitalist) areas of law have been swift to embrace free software, or at least incorporate it into its own tenets. One area in particular is that of competition (antitrust) law, which itself has long been in theoretical conflict with intellectual property, due to the restriction on competition inherent in the grant of ‘monopoly’ rights by copyrights, patents and trademarks. This contribution will examine how competition law has approached free software by examining instances in which courts have had to deal with such initiatives, for instance in the Oracle Sun Systems merger, and the implications that these decisions have on free software initiatives. The presence or absence of corporate involvement in initiatives will be an important factor in this investigation, with it being posited that true instances of ‘commons-based peer production’ can still subvert the capitalist system, including perplexing its laws beyond intellectual property.