Liability in negligence and the failure to disclose multiple risks in surgery : I would have been willing to run the risk

It has been 21 years since the decision in Rogers v Whitaker and the legal principles concerning informed consent and liability for negligence are still strongly grounded in this landmark High Court decision. This paper considers more recent developments in the law concerning the failure to disclose inherent risks in medical procedures, focusing on the decision in Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19. In this case, the appellant underwent a surgical procedure that carried a number of risks. The surgery itself was not performed in a sub-standard way, but the surgeon failed to disclose two risks to the patient, a failure that constituted a breach of the surgeon’s duty of care in negligence. One of the undisclosed risks was considered to be less serious than the other, and this lesser risk eventuated causing injury to the appellant. The more serious risk did not eventuate, but the appellant argued that if the more serious risk had been disclosed, he would have avoided his injuries completely because he would have refused to undergo the procedure. Liability was disputed by the surgeon, with particular reference to causation principles. The High Court of Australia held that the appellant should not be compensated for harm that resulted from a risk he would have been willing to run. We examine the policy reasons underpinning the law of negligence in this specific context and consider some of the issues raised by this unusual case. We question whether some of the judicial reasoning adopted in this case, represents a significant shift in traditional causation principles.

The responsibility to protect in the Asia-Pacific region

In 2005, governments around the world unanimously agreed to the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P), which holds that all states have a responsibility to protect their populations from genocide and mass atrocities, that the international community should assist them to fulfil this duty, and that the international community should take timely and decisive measures to protect populations from such crimes when their host state fails to do so. Progressing R2P from words to deeds requires international consensus about the principle’s meaning and scope. To achieve a global consensus on this, we need to better understand the position of governments around the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region, which has long been associated with an enduring commitment to a traditional concept of sovereignty. The present article contributes to such an endeavour through its three sections. The first part charts the nature of the international consensus on R2P and examines the UN secretary-general’s approach. The second looks in detail at the positions of the Asia-Pacific region’s governments on the R2P principle. The final part explores the way forward for progressing the R2P principle in the Asia-Pacific region.

Disclosure of documents : by duty, court order, or beyond reach?

The article examines the decision in Erskine v McDowall [2001] QDC 192, where the Court considered an application for an order that the defendant disclose documents to which she had a right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Nondelegable duty : the implications of Woodland v Essex County Council

English law has long recognised that nondelagable duties exist, but it does not have a single theory to explain when or why - arguable, one might add, until now. That is the value of the reasons for judgement in Woodland v Essex County Council.

Enforcing upstream: Australian health and safety inspectors and upstream duty holders

The ‘new style’ occupational health and safety legislation implemented in Australia from the late 1970s changed the character of OHS legal obligations, establishing general duties supported by process, performance and, more rarely, specification standards,1 and extending obligations to those who propagate risks as designers, manufacturers, importers or suppliers — the ‘upstream duty holders’. This article examines how OHS agencies inspect and enforce OHS legislation upstream, drawing on empirical research in four Australian states and relevant case law. We argue that upstream duty holders are an increasing area of attention for OHS inspectorates but these inspectorates have not yet risen to the challenge of harnessing these parties to help stem, at the source, the flow of risks into workplaces.

Dismantling worker categories: the primary duty of care, and worker consultation, participation and representation, in the model Work Health and Safety Bill 2009

Late in 2009, the Australian Workplace Relations Ministers' Council endorsed the model Work Health and Safety Bill 2009, which is to be adopted by all Australian governments (federal, state and territory) from 01 January 2012. This paper describes and analyses two key sets of provisions in this model legislation. The first establishes a 'primary' duty of care imposed not on 'employers' but on persons conducting a business or undertaking, and owed to all kinds of workers engaged, directed or influenced by the person conducting the business or undertaking. The second encompasses broad duties on all persons conducting a business or undertaking to consult with workers who carry out work for the business or undertaking and who are directly affected by a work health and safety issue, and to facilitate the election of health and safety representatives representing all workers who carry out work for the business or undertaking. These provisions arguably make a significant contribution to solving a problem faced by occupational safety and health regulators around the world – modifying regulation to accommodate all forms of precarious work.

Take me to your employer: the organisational reach of occupational health and safety regulation

[Conclusion] We have explored two dimensions of the Australian OHS statutes which enable statutory OHS duties to reach more than one employer or self-employed person within a corporate group or network. First, most of the OHS statutes contain provisions extending the reach of employer’s duty beyond the employer’s employees. One legislative technique is to deem contractors and their employees to be employees of the principal contractor. Another imposes duties on employers and self-employed persons to persons who are not employees, so that employers and self-employed persons can be responsible for the OHS of firms, and those they engage, lower in the contractual chain. These duties are non-delegable, meaning that the principal contractor cannot seek to delegate OHS duties to firms lower in the contractual chain. Second, new Victorian ‘shadow officer’ provisions can be applied to remove difficulties and doubt as to the liability of partners in a partnership, officers of unincorporated associations, joint venturers, and holding and subsidiary companies within corporate groups. While the provisions can be argued simply to confirm that a partner who fails to take reasonable care in relation to OHS will be guilty of an offence, we demonstrate that there are very real benefits to having ‘shadow officer’ provisions which remove uncertainties about the liability of unincorporated associations, joint ventures and corporate groups. Perhaps most significantly, the Victorian corporate officer provisions have the potential to extend liability to individuals and other entities within organisational structures, where those individuals and entities make or participate in making decisions that affect the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s business, and are responsible for an OHS offence having been committed, due to their failure to take reasonable care. We suggest that similar provisions should be included in all OHS statutes, to overcome at least some of the barriers limiting group responsibility for OHS statutory duties.

Once more into the mire, dear friends : determining the existence of a duty of care in negligence

There were signs in the 1997 High Court decision in Hill v Van Erp that the different members of the bench were beginning to move in the same direction when it came to the tort equivalent of the search for the Holy Grail, a common approach to the determination of the existence of a duty of care in negligence. However, the court's subsequent decision in Perre v Apand signaled a slide back to uncertainty with the seven judges favouring five different approaches. This Note examines those five approaches in the search for guidance for those at the "coalface" - litigants, their legal advisers and trial judges.

Protecting World Heritage sites from the adverse impacts of climate change : obligations for States Parties to the World Heritage Convention

Through its mandate to protect and preserve places of ‘outstanding universal value’, the World Heritage Convention provides an unlikely yet effective tool in global efforts to mitigate climate change. The practical efficacy of the Strategy to Assist States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses (‘the Strategy’), which represents the World Heritage Committee’s primary response to the threats posed by climate change to World Heritage sites, is undermined by its weak stance on mitigation. This paper argues that the World Heritage Convention imposes stronger obligations on States Parties than those contained in the Strategy, including a duty on States Parties to commit to ‘deep cuts’ in greenhouse gas emissions. In order to ensure the continuing success of the World Heritage Convention States Parties must engage in extensive mitigation strategies without delay.

Ultrafine particle emission of waste incinerators and comparison to the exposure of urban citizens

On the basis of the growing interest on the impact of airborne particles on human exposure as well as the strong debate in Western countries on the emissions of waste incinerators, this work reviewed existing literature to: (i) show the emission factors of ultrafine particles (particles with a diameter less than 100 nm) of waste incinerators, and; (ii) assess the contribution of waste incinerators in terms of ultrafine particles to exposure and dose of people living in the surrounding areas of the plants in order to estimate eventual risks. The review identified only a limited number of studies measuring ultrafine particle emissions, and in general they report low particle number concentrations at the stack (the median value was equal to 5.5×103 part cm-3), in most cases higher than the outdoor background value. The lowest emissions were achieved by utilization of the bag-house filter which has an overall number-based filtration efficiency higher than 99%. Referring to reference case, the corresponding emission factor is equal to 9.1×1012 part min-1, that is lower than one single high-duty vehicle. Since the higher particle number concentrations found in the most contributing microenvironments to the exposure (indoor home, transportation, urban outdoor), the contribution of the waste incinerators to the daily dose can be considered as negligible.

A values analysis of attitudes towards the use of law to prevent obesity: How might these values inform public health law theory and practice?

This thesis asks whether values, like government duty, individual responsibility, community and social justice, influence the way that scholars and research participants think about the use of law to prevent obesity. It explores the way participants speak about values when expressing their support for or against a variety of government regulatory interventions, including taxation, food labelling reforms and advertising restrictions. This research contributes to our understanding of theories of public health law and public health ethics. The qualitative findings also have implications for policy development, in advocating for a variety of government interventions to prevent obesity.

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.

Submission to Queensland Law Reform Commission WP 73 Review of Child Protection Mandatory Reporting Laws for the Early Childhood Education and Care Sector

In 2015 the QLRC is conducting an inquiry into whether to extend legislative mandatory reporting duties for physical abuse and sexual abuse to early childhood education and care practitioners. The current legislation does not require these practitioners to report suspected cases of significant harm from physical or sexual absue to child welfare agencies. Based on the literature, and a multidisciplinary analysis, our overall recommendation is that we endorse the extension to selected early childhood education and care practitioners of Queensland’s current mandatory reporting duty in the Child Protection Act 1999 s 13E.

The National Road Safety Partnership Program providing a pathway for any business/organisation to create a positive road safety culture

The National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP) is an industry-led collaborative network which aims to support Australian businesses in developing a positive road safety culture. It aims to help businesses to protect their employees and the public, not only during work hours, but also when their staff are ‘off-duty’. How do we engage and help an organisation minimise work-related vehicle crashes and their consequences both internally, and within the broader community? The first step is helping an organisation to understand the true cost of its road incidents. Larger organisations often wear the costs without knowing the true impact to their bottom line. All they perceive is the change in insurance or vehicle repairs. Understanding the true cost should help mobilise a business’s leadership to do more. The next step is ensuring the business undertakes an informed, structured, evidence-based pathway which will guide them around the costly pitfalls. A pathway based around the safe system approach with buy-in at the top which brings the workforce along. The final step, benchmarking, allows the organisation to measure and track its change. This symposium will explore the pathway steps for organisations using NRSPP resources to become engaged in road safety. The 'Total Cost of Risk' calculator has been developed by Zurich, tested in Europe by Nestle and modified by NRSPP for Australia. This provides the first crucial step. The next step is a structured approach through the Workplace Road Safety Guide using experts and industry to discuss the preferred safe system approach which can then link into the national Benchmarking Project. The outputs from the symposium can help frame a pathway for organisations to follow through the NRSPP website.

A taxonomic approach to understanding managerial ethical decision making approaches of clinically and non-clinically trained healthcare managers in Australia

Objective To understand differences in the managerial ethical decision-making styles of Australian healthcare managers through the exploratory use of the Managerial Ethical Profiles (MEP) Scale. Background Healthcare managers (doctors, nurses, allied health practitioners and non-clinically trained professionals) are faced with a raft of variables when making decisions within the workplace. In the absence of clear protocols and policies healthcare managers rely on a range of personal experiences, personal ethical philosophies, personal factors and organizational factors to arrive at a decision. Understanding the dominant approaches to managerial ethical decision-making, particularly for clinically trained healthcare managers, is a fundamental step in both increasing awareness of the importance of how managers make decisions, but also as a basis for ongoing development of healthcare managers. Design Cross-sectional. Methods The study adopts a taxonomic approach that simultaneously considers multiple ethical factors that potentially influence managerial ethical decision-making. These factors are used as inputs into cluster analysis to identify distinct patterns of influence on managerial ethical decision-making. Results Data analysis from the participants (n=441) showed a similar spread of the five managerial ethical profiles (Knights, Guardian Angels, Duty Followers, Defenders and Chameleons) across clinically trained and non-clinically trained healthcare managers. There was no substantial statistical difference between the two manager types (clinical and non-clinical) across the five profiles. Conclusion This paper demonstrated that managers that came from clinical backgrounds have similar ethical decision-making profiles to non-clinically trained managers. This is an important finding in terms of manager development and how organisations understand the various approaches of managerial decision-making across the different ethical profiles.