Reforming the law of medical negligence: Solutions in search of a problem

The Commonwealth Government's Principles Based Review of the Law of Negligence recently recommended reforms aimed at limiting liability and damages arising from personal injury and death, in response to the growing perception that the current system of compensating personal injury had become financially unsustainable. Recent increases in medical liability and damages have eroded the confidence of doctors and their professional bodies, with fears of unprecedented desertion from and reduced recruitment into high risk areas, and one of the primary foci of the review concerned medical negligence. The article analyses proposals to redefine the principles necessary for the finding of negligence, against the terms of reference of the review. The article assumes that for the foreseeable future, Australia will persist with tort-based compensation for personal injury rather than developing a no-fault scheme. If the suggested changes to the fundamental principles of negligence are unlikely to reduce medical liability, greater attention might be given to the processes which come into play after the finding of negligence, where reform is more likely to benefit both plaintiffs and defendants.

Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting

The outcome effect occurs where an evaluator, who has knowledge of the outcome of a judge's decision , assesses the quality of the judgment of that decision maker. If the evaluator has knowledge of a negative outcome, then that knowledge negatively influences his or her assessment of the ex ante judgment. For instance, jurors in a lawsuit brought against an auditor for alleged negligence are informed of an undetected fraud, even though an unqualified opinion was issued. This paper reports the results of an experiment in an applied audit judgment setting that examined methods of mitigating the outcome effect by means of instructions. The results showed that simply instructing or warning the evaluator about the potential biasing effects of outcome information was only weakly effective. However, instructions that stressed either (1) the cognitive non-normativeness of the outcome effect or (2) the seriousness and gravity of the evaluation ameliorated the effect significantly. From a theoretical perspective, the results suggest that there may both motivational and cognitive components to the outcome effect. In all, the findings suggest awareness of the outcome effect and use of relatively nonintrusive instructions to evaluators may effectively counteract the potential for the outcome bias.

Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited

The decision in Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited has significant implications for the stockbroking industry and investment advisors - likely to encourage brokers to adopt a more cautious understanding of their obligations to clients - illustrates the ability and willingness of small investors to challenge the quality of service being provided by their stockbroker.