Applying The Law Of New South Wales

Customary laws are the traditional common rules or practices that have been passed down through generations and have become a native part of the expected conduct in a community.

Thirty years ago, the California Supreme Court had highlighted the doctor’s duty to warn through the landmark case Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (in short as Tarasoff I)in 1974. Due to the defendant’ petition for a rehearing, the California Supreme Court unusually moved to rehear the same case in 1976 (in short as Tarasoff II) and articulated the duty rather a duty of protect. Pursuant to the precedents established by the two Tarasoff cases, in a specific relationship, the professional doctor owns reasonable obligation to take care and protect identified third party from imminent risk of serious harm caused by his/her patient. Since the Tarasoffs, there have been numerous related cases in the US and several pertinent cases in Canada. The controversial cases presented confusions in both legal and professional ethics levels: how the professional confidentiality harmonizes with the public interest priority and what are the appropriate criteria to implement?

Kipnis contemplates the significance of legal vs ethical duties medical professionals have to their clients. He sides with the need for confidentiality without condition. If conditions exist that make it possible for private information about a patient to be shared with a third party, that patient needs to be informed of this prior to treatment before information is gathered. Kipnis believes the outcome of this would result in two possible groups of people. One is the patient who would disclose information to a third party either doing it themselves or by allowing the professional to do so for them. The second group would be patients not willing to be open and honest with details when they do not wish to have them known. He reasons that if the patient knows that whatever they tell a professional is unconditionally confidential then they are more likely to be forthcoming and honest with details they might otherwise not be. The patient might not tell details necessary for proper diagnosis and treatment or they may not follow through with treatment at all. If the professional has no idea that a third party may need protection, knowledge of the potential threat, at least gives the medical professional an opportunity to try to help or stop the potential injury from happening using means that stop short of disclosing confidential information. Kipnis holds to the concept that the physician has a greater responsibility to

The law of negligence covers a broad spectrum, with negligence being defined to apply in ‘any situation where a defendant has breached a duty of care owed to a claimant’. This essay will seek to look into the different areas within the law of negligence, to assess Lord Toulson’s assertion in Micheal v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) . There will be a primary focus on his notion of ‘incremental growth’ , ‘argument by analogy’ , and the necessity of ‘policy considerations’ , with particular regard taken towards the mixture of policy considerations, in an effort to determine whether some areas, such as social costs, are weighed more heavily than others. Due to the wide breath and material covered under the law of negligence, this essay

For the purposes of this case, I am assuming every reasonable avenue has been explored regarding treatment of John’s depression and Parkinson’s. With this in mind, John’s capacity and competence to make decisions regarding his health must be scrutinised. As a patient with a depressive illness, there is a concern that his mental state may be impaired and with it his decision making abilities. If it is (use example) this would give the doctor prerogative to worry about further actions on his suicidal thoughts. If the doctor is legitimately concerned about the patients wellbeing i.e. the possibility of self-ham, the doctor may have to think about disclosing this privileged patient information to a loved one; namely Johns wife. This type of scenario is outlined by fghjfgh

This Law Commission report aims to address the issues of the law regarding negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. The complications arise when it comes to the recovery of compensation for the psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant. It has become increasingly difficult to resolve claims for recovery as the cases have become more complex. This report will evaluate the current law as to whether it is adequate following the various cases decided. Subsequently, proposals will be made on reforming the law to ensure that people who have suffered negligently inflicted psychiatric injury are able to recover compensation if their claims are warranted. The evaluation and recommendations will focus on certain areas of the law which is the shock requirement and recovery for the secondary victim rather than the entire legislation on liability for psychiatric illness.

‘Nervous Shock’ cases form an area of law which illustrates well the operation of judicial policy. By the close examination of these cases, it is possible to understand the change that is coming in the law and also the changing trends in attitudes of lawyers, doctors and society in general over a period of 100 years to psychiatric injury. It is also possible to

Furthermore, three courses of action that can be taken to resolve the current issues that Dr. Jones is having would be to take an absence from work, partake in marriage and individual counseling along with speaking with a trusted colleague in order to discuss a plan to utilize for acute distress. Dr. Jones speaking with a few trusted colleagues the suite of offices that he practices to discuss difficult cases or everyday stresses of the profession and personal can be beneficial in the long run to ensure he avoids other ethical/legal violations while having someone to check in on him. Psychotherapy and/or consultation with a colleague or another trusted professional would be beneficial for Dr. Jones to maintain his competence and keep a balance.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] has been instrumental to the foundations of Tort Law, following the notion that since this case ‘negligence has rapidly developed into the cornerstone of our system for compensating

If V injured them self, D believes the chain of causation has been broken. However, Lord Justice Stephenson stated for D to be liable V conduct must have been a “reasonably foreseeable consequence”. This is not relevant for Alice and Karishma. This may apply to Jake as it was a “reasonably foreseeable consequence” that he would try to save Alice. The

s 3B of the Civil Liability Act excludes the circumstances where the CLA is not applicable, such as deliberate conduct intended to cause harm. The following cases deal with alleged negligence and do not fall into any of the categories. Thus the CLA applies to all four cases.

In this landmark case, there were two key questions that had to be answered – Firstly how would it be decided what was acceptable practice in the context of the treatment provided and secondly who would decide what was acceptable in matters of informed consent and disclosure of risk. In his direction to the jury, Mcnair J referred to the test of negligence applied by Lord President Clyde in ‘Hunter v Hanley’ – “the true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of the doctor is whether he has been proved to be

“The law has progressed by placing an increased emphasis upon the relevance of the possibility of negligence or inadventure on the part of the person to whom the duty is owed” at page 90.

The Defendant 's negligent actions and carelessness placed others at risk and caused severe financial disruptions and loss to the Claimant to the sum of £ 55,329.00 plus damages and interest as indicated in invoices and statement of costs.

Whereas, following White v John Warwick , ambiguous wording out of exclusion clause would effectively protect D from their strict contractual liability towards J, but it would not exempt them from liability in negligence. Liability of negligence can only be excluded if clearly expressed .