Open content licensing of public sector information and the risk of tortious liability for Australian Governments

There has been an increasing interest by governments worldwide in the potential benefits of open access to public sector information (PSI). However, an important question remains: can a government incur tortious liability for incorrect information released online under an open content licence? This paper argues that the release of PSI online for free under an open content licence, specifically a Creative Commons licence, is within the bounds of an acceptable level of risk to government, especially where users are informed of the limitations of the data and appropriate information management policies and principles are in place to ensure accountability for data quality and accuracy.

Justice for pollution-victims in China and Australia

The concept of environmental justice is well developed in North America, but is still at the evolutionary stage in most other jurisdictions around the globe. This paper seeks to explore two jurisdictions where incidents of environmental justice are likely to be seen in the future as a result of manufacturing and mining practices. The discussion will centre upon avenues to environmental justice for both private citizens and the public at large. The first jurisdiction considered is China, where environmental liability claims brought by Chinese citizens have increased at an annual average of 25% (Yang 2011). Manufacturing is at the core of the Chinese economy and is responsible for some of the unprecedented economic growth in the region. Less discussed are the industry impacts on water and air pollution levels and the associated implications of these pollutants on local communities. China introduced the Tort Liability Law (TLL) in 2010, which may provide avenues to justice for private citizens. The other jurisdiction considered by the paper is Australia, where the mining boom has buffered the Australian economy from the global financial crisis. There is some limited case law in Australia where private citizens have made a claim in toxic torts; however the framework is underdeveloped in terms of the significant risks facing indigenous and local communities in mining areas and also by comparison to the developments of the TLL framework in China. This paper traces the regulatory responses to the affects of major industries on communities in China and Australia. From this it examines the need for environmental justice avenues that align with rule of law principles.

Low-cost railway level crossings - breaking down the barriers

Level crossing risk continues to be a significant safety concern for the security of rail operations around the world. Over the last decade or so, a third of railway related fatalities occurred as a direct result of collisions between road and rail vehicles in Australia. Importantly, nearly half of these collisions occurred at railway level crossings with no active protection, such as flashing lights or boom barriers. Current practice is to upgrade level crossings that have no active protection. However, the total number of level crossings found across Australia exceed 23,500, and targeting the proportion of these that are considered high risk (e.g. public crossings with passive controls) would cost in excess of AU$3.25 billion based on equipment, installation and commissioning costs of warning devices that are currently type approved. Level crossing warning devices that are low-cost provide a potentially effective control for reducing risk; however, over the last decade, there have been significant barriers and legal issues in both Australia and the US that have foreshadowed their adoption. These devices are designed to have significantly lower lifecycle costs compared with traditional warning devices. They often make use of use of alternative technologies for train detection, wireless connectivity and solar energy supply. This paper describes the barriers that have been encountered for the adoption of these devices in Australia, including the challenges associated with: (1) determining requisite safety levels for such devices; (2) legal issues relating to duty of care obligations of railway operators; and (3) issues of Tort liability around the use of less than fail-safe equipment. This paper provides an overview of a comprehensive safety justification that was developed as part of a project funded by a collaborative rail research initiative established by the Australian government, and describes the conceptual framework and processes being used to justify its adoption. The paper provides a summary of key points from peer review and discusses prospective barriers that may need to be overcome for future adoption. A successful outcome from this process would result in the development of a guideline for decision-making, providing a precedence for adopting low-cost level crossing warning devices in other parts of the world. The framework described in this paper also provides relevance to the review and adoption of analogous technologies in rail and other safety critical industries.

Spontaneous and episodic volunteers: The legislative, insurance and risk management framework

Baby Boomers are a generation of life long association joiners, but following generations prefer spontaneous and episodic volunteering. This trend is apparent not only during natural disasters, but in most other spheres of volunteering. Legal liability for such volunteers is a growing concern, which unresolved, may dampen civic participation. We critically examine the current treatment of these liabilities through legislation, insurance and risk management.

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.

Will Queensland tort reform change valuation practice and valuers liability

It has been common practice over past property boom and bust cycles in Australia for financial institutions and property owners who have suffered a loss in the property downturn to sue valuers for negligence. Damages claimed are based on the price differential between the valuation at or nearing the peak of the market and the subsequent sale in the market downturn. However, the context of valuers liability has become increasingly complex as a result of statutory reforms introduced in response to the Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report 2002), in particular the introduction of Civil Liability Acts introducing proportionate liability provisions. Legislative reforms have had some positive outcomes for Valuers, however valuers need to continue to maintain high ethical standards, independence and professionalism in valuation practice.

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.

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.

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.

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

An analysis of Australia's legal regime for imposing liability on manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs

Following a trial in June 2009 where the Federal Court heard submissions regarding whether Merck Sharpe and Dohme Australia should be held liable for an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions noted in patients who had taken the anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx, a judgment was handed down against MSDA in March 2010. MSDA appealed to the Full Federal Court, where they were successful. Special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was rejected in May 2012. This article will examine the themes raised in the trial judgment and the appropriateness of Australia’s statutory consumer protection regime through the lens of pharmaceutical drug injuries and side effects.