Duty of Care of a Public Body: A Singapore Context

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Chester Cheong
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Body

3. Duty of care: further issues

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Public Body

This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.

3. Duty of care: further issues

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Public Body

This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 138-187
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

3. Duty of care

2021 ◽  
pp. 22-32
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Public Body

This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 137-185
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

Thinking about Publishing? On Seeking Patient Consent to Publish Case Material

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Clulow ◽  
Ernest Wallwork ◽  
Caroline Sehon
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Professional Community ◽  
Case Material ◽  
Clinical Material ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Therapeutic Action ◽  
Scientific Advancement ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Ethical Responsibilities

The onus on therapists to seek the consent of their patients before publishing clinical material may be one reason why so few decide to write about their experience. There are inevitable and unavoidable tensions in balancing the duty of care to patients with other ethical responsibilities, including the needs of the professional community for education and scientific advancement. In this paper, we explore the context and dynamics of seeking consent from couples and families to publish material relating to their therapy and propose a way to manage some of the ethical dilemmas involved in writing about patients that is in keeping with the contemporary analytic literature on the interpersonal unconscious between patient and therapist, and the interpsychic/interpersonal dimensions of therapeutic action. Throughout this paper, the term “patient” is used to designate couples and families as well as individuals.

Directors' Liability in Negligence – Challenging the "Elements of the Tort" Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 485
Author(s):  
Victoria Stace
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Threshold Test

This article suggests that the "elements of the tort" approach to directors' liability in negligence to third parties should be discontinued on the basis that assumption of responsibility as a threshold test is not an element of the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement and a more constructive approach would be to address the policy issues associated with imposing liability on directors as part of the two-stage duty of care inquiry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document