The ghost in the machine: Legal challenges of neural interface devices

Neural interface devices and the melding of mind and machine, challenge the law in determining where civil liability for injury, damage or loss should lie. The ability of the human mind to instruct and control these devices means that in a negligence action against a person with a neural interface device, determining the standard of care owed by him or her will be of paramount importance. This article considers some of the factors that may influence the court’s determination of the appropriate standard of care to be applied in this situation, leading to the conclusion that a new standard of care might evolve.

Don't argue with the ref! - Legal liability for incorrect decisions of sports' officials

This paper continues the conversation from recent articles examining potential remedies available for incorrect decisions by sports officials. In particular, this article focuses on bringing an action against an official in negligence for pure economic loss. Using precedent cases, it determines that such an action would have a low chance of success, as a duty of care would be difficult to establish. Even if that could be overcome, an aggrieved player or team would still face further hurdles at the stages of breach, causation and defences. The article concludes by proposing some options to further reduce the small risk of liability to officials.

The Australian litigation landscape - Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and general dentistry (oral surgery procedures): An analysis of litigation cases

Background: There are persistent concerns about litigation in the dental and medical professions. These concerns arise in a setting where general dentists are more frequently undertaking a wider range of oral surgery procedures, potentially increasing legal risk. Methods: Judicial cases dealing with medical negligence in the fields of general dentistry (oral surgery procedure) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery were located using the three main legal databases. Relevant cases were analysed to determine the procedures involved, the patients’ claims of injury, findings of negligence, and damages awarded. A thematic analysis of the cases was undertaken to determine trends. Results: Fifteen cases over a twenty-year period were located across almost all Australian jurisdictions (eight cases involved general dentists; seven cases involved Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons). Eleven of the fifteen cases involved determinations of whether or not the practitioner had failed in their duty of care; negligence was found in six cases. Eleven of the fifteen cases related to molar extractions (eight specifically to third molar). Conclusions: Dental and medical practitioners wanting to manage legal risk should have regard to circumstances arising in judicial cases. Adequate warning of risks is critical, as is offering referral in appropriate cases. Pre-operative radiographs, good medical records, and processes to ensure appropriate follow-up are also important.

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.

Legal duties following the discharge of mental health patients

In the recent decision of Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna; Hunter and New England Local Health District v Simon, the High Court of Australia held that a hospital and its medical staff owed no common law duty of care to third parties claiming for mental harm, against the background of statutory powers to detain mentally ill patients. This conclusion was based in part on the statutory framework and in part on the inconsistency which would arise if such a duty was imposed. If such a duty was imposed in these circumstances, the consequence may be that doctors would generally detain rather than discharge mentally ill persons to avoid the foreseeable risk of harm to others. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the policy of the mental health legislation , which favours personal liberty and discharge rather than detention unless no other care of a less restrictive kind is appropriate and reasonably available.

The Statutory Defence(s) of 'peer professional opinion'

In the wake of the GFC and with ever increasing consumer-protection-related laws, clients are more aware of their rights and your obligations as a professional valuer. They also are more likely to take legal action if, as a result of their reliance on a valuation, they suffer a financial loss. In some Australian jurisdictions, in response to a claim of negligence, the professional valuer may be able to raise a professional practice defence under civil liability legislation. This article considers the nature of this statutory defence, what is required to rely upon it and in which jurisdictions it applies.

Governance of enterprise Information and Technology: A new core competency for boards of directors

With the level of digital disruption that is affecting businesses around the globe, you might expect high levels of Governance of Enterprise Information and Technology (GEIT) capability within boards. Boards and their senior executives know technology is important. More than 90% of boards and senior executives currently identify technology as essential to their current businesses, and to their organization’s future. But as few as 16% have sufficient GEIT capability. Global Centre for Digital Business Transformation’s recent research contains strong indicators of the need for change. Despite board awareness of both the likelihood and impact of digital disruption, things digital are still not viewed as a board-level matter in 45% of companies. And, it’s not just the board. The lack of board attention to technology can be mirrored at senior executive level as well. When asked about their organization’s attitude towards digital disruption, 43% of executives said their business either did not recognise it as a priority or was not responding appropriately. A further 32% were taking a “follower” approach, a potentially risky move as we will explain. Given all the evidence that boards know information and technology (I&T***) is vital, that they understand the inevitably, impact and speed of digital change and disruption, why are so many boards dragging their heels? Ignoring I&T disruption and refusing to build capability at board level is nothing short of negligence. Too many boards risk flying blind without GEIT capability [2]. To help build decision quality and I&T governance capability, this research: • Confirms a pressing need to build individual competency and cumulative, across-board capability in governing I&T • Identifies six factors that have rapidly increased the need, risk and urgency • Finds that boards may risk not meeting their duty of care responsibilities when it comes to I&T oversight • Highlights barriers to building capability details three GEIT competencies that boards and executives can use for evaluation, selection, recruitment and professional development.

Investigations of Noise-Related Tinnitus

Tinnitus is a frequent consequence of noise trauma. Usually, however, the main focus regarding the consequences of noise trauma is placed on hearing loss, instead of tinnitus. The objectives of the present study were to assess various aspects of noise-related tinnitus in Finland, such as to determine the main causes of conscript acute acoustic traumas (AAT) in the military, assess tinnitus prevalence after noise trauma, characterize long-term AAT-related tinnitus prevalence and characteristics, assess occupational tinnitus, and evaluate the efficacy of hearing protection regulations in preventing hearing loss and tinnitus. The study comprised several independent noise-exposed groups: conscripts performing their military duty, former conscripts who suffered an AAT over a decade earlier, bomb explosion victims, and retired army personnel. Tinnitus questionnaires were used to assess tinnitus prevalence and characteristics. For occupational tinnitus, occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) reports to the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health were reviewed. Tinnitus is a common result of AAT, blast exposure and long-term noise exposure. Despite hearing protection regulations, up to hundreds of AATs occur annually among conscripts in the Finnish Defence Forces (FDF). The most common cause is an accidental shot, accounting for approximately half of the cases. Conscript AATs are mainly due to accidental shots, while the ear is unprotected. Only seldom is an AAT due to negligence. The most common causative weapon of conscript AATs is the assault rifle, accounting for 81% of conscript AATs. After AAT, the majority of tinnitus cases resolve during military service and become asymptomatic. However, in one-fifth of the cases, tinnitus persists, causing problems such as sleeping and concentration difficulties in many. In Finland, occupational tinnitus often remains unreported in conjunction with NIHL reports. In a survey of occupational NIHL cases, tinnitus was mentioned in only four per cent. However, a subsequent inquiry revealed that almost 90% in fact had tinnitus, indicating that most cases remained undetected and unreported. The best way to prevent noise-related tinnitus is prevention of noise trauma. In the military, hearing protection guidelines have been revised several times over the years. These regulations have been effective in reducing hearing loss of professional soldiers. There has also been a reduction in cases with tinnitus, but the decrease was not significant. However, with improved hearing protection regulations, a significant reduction in the risk of more serious, disturbing tinnitus was observed.

Exploring the contribution of workplace learning to an HRD strategy in the Scottish legal profession.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of human resource development (HRD) for law firms in the UK. It examines how the characteristics of legal professional practice in the UK, including the partnership structure, long established methods of targeting solicitors and the law society, may act as barriers to the implementation of HRD. Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses an exploratory case study research approach to investigate characteristics and issues influencing the adoption of HRD in a Scottish legal firm. Primary data are collected via semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of representatives. Findings – Despite recognition of the importance of learning, the characteristic elements of law firms, including the partnership structure; the pervasiveness of time-billed targets in the solicitor community; and HR’s profile and acceptance among the solicitor community, remain as barriers to the applicability of HRD. The research also exposes variability on the level and scope of development opportunities, an emphasis on technical skills development, and a lack of solicitors’ self-managed learning ability. Research limitations/implications – While the research findings provide a useful insight into the barriers to HRD in one legal firm, this does not allow for any generalisations being drawn from the study. Practical implications – The paper explores the suitability of workplace learning to support legal professional development. Originality/value – There is a dearth of research into HRD in legal practices in the UK. The paper contributes to the contextual influences that limit the applicability of HRD to legal professional practices.

Property in body parts and products of the human body

An intriguing question, which until recently had not been directly explored by the courts, is the extent to which English law recognises body parts and products of the human body as property capable of ownership. Although the common law currently recognises no general property in a dead body (and only limited possessory rights in respect of it), this apparent “no-property rule” provides no justification, it is submitted, for denying proprietary status to parts or products of a living human body. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust ([2009] EWCA Civ 37) lends strong support to the view that genetic material (as the product of a living human body) is capable of ownership, at least in the context of a claim in the tort of negligence and bailment. This article examines the various issues by reference to both English and Commonwealth authority.

Discourses of Corporate crime as natural disaster: the case of the Paddington Rail Crash

Drawing on the literature in criminology and media studies on the nature of social understandings of corporate crime and its representation in the media, this paper takes one small but important step in this direction by carrying out a linguistic case study on the news coverage of one sequence of events which resulted from corporate negligence – the Paddington rail crash, a sequence of news events that were important as they led to legal change as regards corporate responsibility in Britain. The paper concludes by showing that while the news coverage played an important part in leading to a change in the law regarding corporate responsibility, although this received little coverage in the press.

Recent Developments in the Law of Torts in Northern Ireland Annual Conference of the Irish Association of Law Teachers

This paper reviews decisions from the Northern Ireland and England and Wales High Courts and Courts of Appeal as well as the UK Supreme Court relating to tort and principally to the tort of negligence in the past 12 months or so.

In structure, the paper will be presented in four parts. First, three preliminary points relating to contemporary features of the NI civil courts: personal litigants – Devine v McAteer [2012] NICA 30 (7 September 2012); pre-action protocols – Monaghan v Graham [2013] NIQB 53 (3 May 2013); and the rise of alternative dispute resolution. On the last named issue, the recent decision of PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288 (23 October 2013) on unreasonable refusal to mediate, will be discussed.

Second, the paper moves to consider the law of negligence generally and case law from the NI High Court reiterating Lord Hoffmann’s view in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46 that no duty of care arises from obvious risks of injury. In this, reference will be made to the application of the above “Hoffmann principle” in West Sussex County Council v Pierce [2013] EWCA Civ 1230 (16 October 2013), which concerned an accident sustained by a child at school. A similar set of facts was presented recently to the UK Supreme Court in Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 (23 October 2013). The decision there, on non-delegable duties of care, will have a significant impact for schools in the provision of extracurricular activities.

Third, I will review a NI case of note on the duty of care of solicitors in the context of professional negligence in the context of conflicting advice by counsel.

Fourth, I will examine a series of cases on employer liability and including issues such as the duty of care towards the volunteer worker; tort and safety at work principles generally; and, more specifically, the duty of care of the employer towards an employee who suffers psychiatric illness as a result of stress and/or harassment at work. On the issue of workplace stress, the NI courts have made extensive reference to the Hale LJ principles found in the Court of Appeal decision of Hatton v Sutherland [2002] 1 All ER 1 and applied to those who have suffered trauma in reporting on or policing “the troubles” in Northern Ireland. On the issue of statutory harassment at work, the paper will also mention the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 (20 March 2013).

Making way for change at the Bar: The practical implications of the new Bar Standards Board Handbook

The Legal Services Act 2007 caused a need to change professional conduct rules for lawyers in England and Wales. The Bar Standards Board Handbook brings substantial changes to the way barristers are regulated. Changes include litigation rights, reporting of professional misconduct, an increased focus on chambers, and expansion to include employees of chambers and barristers without practicing certificates (unregistered or non-practicing barristers). The approach to enforcement and supervision moves to include elements of outcome focused, principle based and risk based approaches. These changes have the potential to change the practice of different groups of barristers and the dynamics between them.

Diploma (vellum) from the Bar of Lower Canada to Edward Bradley Parkin of Quebec

Diploma (vellum) from the Bar of Lower Canada to Edward Bradley Parkin of Quebec conferring upon him the right of practicing as an Advocate, Barrister, Attorney, Solicitor and Proctor-at-Law in all courts in Lower Canada, June 4, 1866.