scholarly journals Online harm reduction – a statutory duty of care and regulator

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods
Keyword(s):  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Statutory Duty

scholarly journals Getting it right: directors’ assessment of information

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-131
Author(s):  
Kerri O’Donnell ◽  
Barry Hicks ◽  
John Streeter ◽  
Paul Shantapriyan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Executive Directors ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Regulatory Guidance ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Individual Interpretation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the increasing expectation against two concepts, information and process scepticism. In light of the Centro case judgement, directors’ decisions are held to increasing standards of due care and diligence. Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper, drawing upon archival material, including statute law, case law, regulatory guidance material and media releases in Australasia. The authors review the statutory duty of care, skill and diligence expected of non-executive directors. Findings – Whether a director has exercised an appropriate level of reasonable care and skill and/or due diligence has been a matter for the courts to decide. Such retrospective analysis leaves directors vulnerable to the uncertainty of whether their individual interpretation of diligence matches up to that of the presiding judge. The authors provide directors with a framework to apply scepticism to information and processes provided by those on whom the directors may rely. Research limitations/implications – Two concepts are identified: reasonable reliance on others and the business judgement rule. The authors present arguments that challenge us to understand reasonable reliance, judgement and actions of directors in light of processing and information scepticism. Practical implications – Directors do have a different role to that of auditors; incorporating scepticism can enable directors to fulfil their responsibility towards shareholders. By applying information and process scepticism, directors of companies can reduce the likelihood and magnitude of litigation costs and out-of-court settlements. Originality/value – This paper provides a framework to apply scepticism to information and processes provided by people on whom the directors may rely.

Still Awaiting Clarity: Why Victoria’s New Civil Liability Laws for Organisational Child Abuse Are Less Helpful than They Appear

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Griffin ◽  
Gemma Briffa
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Institutional Responses

In 2017 Victoria became the first Australian jurisdiction to initiate substantive reforms to its civil liability laws, to address barriers faced by plaintiffs seeking to hold institutions liable for child abuse. The new law, based on recommendations arising from a Victorian inquiry, establishes a statutory duty of care owed by organisations to take reasonable precautions against abuse of children under their care or supervision. On its face, the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 (Vic) looks like a helpful clarification of this complex area of law. However, when viewed within the context of the work of the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, as well as common law principles – particularly strict liability in the areas of non- delegable duty and vicarious liability, and the High Court decision of Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC – we see that barriers and uncertainties remain.

Tort Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Invasion Of Privacy ◽  
Statutory Duty

Tort Law encourages the reader to understand, engage with, and critically reflect upon tort law. The book contains five parts. Part I, which is about the tort of negligence, looks at duty of care, omissions, acts of third parties, psychiatric harm, economic loss, breach, causation and remoteness, and defences to negligence. Part II considers occupiers’, product and employers’ liability and breach of statutory duty. Part III looks at personal torts and explains trespass to the person, defamation and the invasion of privacy. Part IV concerns land torts and Part V looks at liability (including vicarious liability), damages and limitations.

An Examination of the Relevance of the Codification and Application of the American Business Judgment Rule to Nigerian Corporate Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-397
Author(s):  
Wiseman Ubochioma
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
American Business ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Business Decisions ◽  
Business Judgment Rule ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Us

AbstractThe business judgment rule is an ancient doctrine that was developed in the US. It seeks to prevent courts from reviewing directors’ decisions, on the basis that directors have the capacity and expertise to make business decisions. This article examines the desirability of applying the US business judgment rule in Nigeria. Through a comparative analysis, it argues that the peculiarities of Nigeria's corporate law and environment do not justify the application of the rule. More specifically, it contends that differences in the legal regime for derivative suits, standards of duty of care and skill, corporate law culture, and the distinct epoch in which the business judgment rule and the duty of care and skill were recognized in the US, make its application unnecessary in Nigeria. It concludes that the current statutory duty of care and skill should be retained to hold directors accountable for reckless business decisions.

Kidner's Casebook on Torts

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Product Liability ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Breach Of Duty

Kidner’s Casebook on Torts provides a comprehensive, portable library of the leading cases in the field. It presents a wide range of carefully edited extracts, which illustrate the essence and reasoning behind each decision made. Concise author commentary focuses the reader on the key elements within the extracts. Statutory materials are also included where they are necessary to understand the subject. The book examines the tort of negligence including chapters on the basic principles of duty of care, omissions and acts of third parties, the liability of public bodies, psychiatric harm, economic loss, breach of duty, causation and remoteness of damage and defences. It goes on to consider three special liability regimes—occupiers’ liability, product liability and breach of statutory duty—before turning to discussion of the personal torts and land torts. It concludes with chapters on vicarious liability and damages.

Obliging Platforms to Accept a Duty of Care

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-109
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Will Perrin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Codes Of Practice ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Uk

This chapter introduces the statutory duty of care model of regulation proposed by Carnegie UK Trust and which underpinned the approach of the UK Government’s Online Harms White Paper. Based on the approach found in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the proposal is for systems-based regulation which has two aspects. The first that it is the platform that should be regulated not the content, including the design of the platform and the operation of the business. Secondly, the duty of care implies a risk assessment so that reasonably foreseeable harms are avoided where possible or mitigated. Perfection is not required and this regime does not impose liability on the platform for individual items of content. An independent regulator was envisaged, one that had a double role: enforcement and the development of good behaviours through codes of practice.

Casebook on Tort Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Product Liability ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Subject

Kidner’s Casebook on Torts provides a comprehensive, portable library of the leading cases in the field. It presents a wide range of carefully edited extracts, which illustrate the essence and reasoning behind each decision made. Concise author commentary focuses the reader on the key elements within the extracts. Statutory materials are also included where they are necessary to understand the subject. The book examines the tort of negligence including chapters on the basic principles of duty of care, omissions and acts of third parties, the liability of public bodies, psychiatric harm, economic loss, breach of duty, causation and remoteness of damage and defences. It goes on to consider three special liability regimes—occupiers’ liability, product liability and breach of statutory duty—before turning to discussion of the personal torts and land torts. It concludes with chapters on vicarious liability and damages.

scholarly journals When are occupiers in breach of their duty of care? The advantages of a systematic test

Legal Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-112
Author(s):  
Marie-Bénédicte Dembour ◽  
Juliet Turner ◽  
Charles Barrow
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Remedial Action ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Breach Of Duty

AbstractSixty years have passed since occupiers in England and Wales were placed under a statutory duty to keep visitors to occupied premises reasonably safe. The legislation, however, did not detail the exact operation of this duty of care. The case law, expected to fill in the gaps, has arguably developed without sufficient consistency and/or predictability. This apparent confusion can be remedied through applying a systematic test to the question of whether a breach of duty has occurred. The test follows the verification that the case falls within the field of occupiers’ liability because of the presence of a danger attributable to the state of the premises. It consists of three consecutive stages which ask: (1) whether the risk of injury was foreseeable; (2) whether the occupier could reasonably have been expected to have addressed this very particular risk; and (3) whether any remedial action the occupier actually took was appropriate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document