Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

The statutory standard of care for professionals such as teachers can be found in s 22 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) which states that

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

This problem question is about claiming for damages due to psychiatric harm. It involves questions regarding primary victims, secondary victims, and special duties problems.

In order to demonstrate an understanding of relevant legislation governing practice and the legal frameworks which inform and mandate practice, I will provide a summary of the Corrections Victoria Disability Framework 2016-2019, and discuss its main principles in supervision.

Individuals with a mental illness enter a mental health court as it reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system, reduces stigma and stereotypical judgement in court, and reduces the number of clients with mental illnesses in prisons and jails. Although the judge does sentence the client, the client does still retain rights: The right to refuse treatments, the right to proper care and documentation, the right to be informed of all available medical treatments, and most importantly, the right to be treated with dignity as a human being. The court demonstrated that the client’s rights were addressed by offering the client the opportunity to voice his concerns, and by acknowledging his views on his condition. Even though the client did not think he needed help, the nurse and case manager were concerned about his hallucination, eating patterns, and lack of stability. They did not believe that an outpatient setting would work for this client as he was not stable, did not have clear insight, and retained a lack of resources. Barrier to care, for the mental health in general, include: lack of resource, knowledge deficits, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of mental health care professionals. Overall, this experience offered me to opportunity to perceive how a Mental Health Court functions and differs from the traditional court room, in relation to client goals,

When it comes to forensic mental health service provision, one of the most essential elements to understand from a legal perspective is what is actually allowable by law in terms of involuntary care provision (Guide, 2000; Mental Health Act, 2000). While social workers

This legal issue addresses how police services are being given very little training into circumstances involving mentally ill perpetrators and examines how and why they are given no formal screening process in identifying those who have a mental disorder.

It has long been acknowledged that an offender who as a result to mental disorder, is incapable of understanding the nature and quality of a criminal act, or of recognizing that it was wrong, should not be convicted. Bill C-54 the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act deals with the accused who has been found Criminally Responsible because of mental disorder. Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) is defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, stating that if someone is deemed NCR he or she cannot be held accountable for the offence they’ve committed, merely if at that time they were suffering through a mental disorder. The Bill will enact three main factors which will affect the mental disorder regime

The main legal issue covered in the Novakovic v Stekovic case is the tort of negligence followed with personal injury. In the appellant’s point of view, according to the Civil Liability Acts 2002 (NSW) the recognized duties of care include (7): the occupiers to visitors, tenants, even trespassers.(1) Hence the respondents must precaution all the potential risk which may cause injury to the visitors in their premises. For this point, the respondents admitted at trial that they owed the appellant a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury. So the issue followed up is: Did Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic breach their duty of care?

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.

Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be

) First and foremost, in order for us to claim for the psychiatric damage that Adam has suffered under tort law, we will have to prove that Adam is either a primary victim or a secondary victim and Adam is suffered from a recognised psychiatric illness, anxiety and stress will generally not sufficient. Primary victims are those who directly involved in the event and secondary victims are those who are suffered a psychiatric illness when someone they know is killed or injured in an accident. A recognised psychiatric condition is defined as a genuine illness or injury, needed medical evidence and has a long term effect. Adam might claim as a primary victim in this case, because a primary victim has to suffer physical injury or at a risk of physical injury and psychiatric injuries. The liability of causing psychiatric injury depends on foreseeability of physical injury, for example, in the case of Page v Smith where Mr Page suffered no physical injury but a recurrence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and became unable to work, Smith is liable as he could reasonably foresee that Mr Page suffer physical injury. Adam could claim as a primary victim if Adam is in the zone of physical danger, I firmly believe that Adam was in the zone of danger at that time because he was seated in the row of the seat immediately behind their children and the risk of physical injury of Adam was also foreseeable, therefore, Adam owed a duty of care in relation to psychiatric damage. Besides, the

It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices. Barbara Wootton (Crime and Criminal Law:

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.