DOCSLIB.ORG

Australian Civil Liability Guide 10Th Edition PDF 1.48 MB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Australian Civil Liability Guide 10Th Edition PDF 1.48 MB Our mission is to be recognised as a premier provider of specialist legal services across Australia and internationally by being the best we can be for our clients and ourselves. Carter Newell Lawyers is an award winning specialist law firm providing legal advice toAustralian and international corporate clients in our key specialist practice areas of: § Insurance § Commercial Property § Construction & Engineering § Litigation & Dispute Resolution § Resources § Aviation § Corporate Within each of these core areas we have dedicated experts who are committed to and passionate about their field and have extensive experience and knowledge. Our Awards 2016 Winner 2015 Finalist Australasian Law Awards – State / 2015 Leading Queensland Litigation & Dispute Resolution Law Regional Firm of the Year Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession 2016, 2015 Leading Queensland Defendant Public Liability Law 2015 Winner QLS Equity and Diversity Awards – Large Legal Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession Practice Award 2016, 2015 Leading Queensland Professional Indemnity Law 2015 Finalist Australian HR Awards – Employer of Choice Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession (<1000 employees) 2016, 2015 Leading Queensland Defendant Medical Negligence 2014 Winner Australasian Lawyer Employer of Choice – Bronze Law Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession Medal Award, Career Progression Award and Work Life Balance Award 2016 Leading Queensland Energy & Resources Law Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession 2013, 2012, 2008 Winner 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007 Finalist ALB Australasian Law Awards – Brisbane Law Firm of the Year 2016 Finalist - Australian HR Awards – Best Reward & Recognition Program 2012 Winner Disability Employment Award – AHRI Diversity Awards 2016 Finalist Australasian Law Awards – Australian Law Firm of the Year (up to 100 lawyers) 2011, 2010, 2008, 2007, 2005 Finalist 2006 Winner BRW Client Choice Award for Best Law Firm in Australia (open to firms with 2016 Finalist Australasian Law Awards – Employee Health & revenue under $50M per year) Wellbeing Award 2011 Winner ALB Employer of Choice Blue Award 2016, 2015 Finalist Australasian Law Awards – Insurance Specialist Firm of the Year 2011 Finalist ALB Australasian Law Awards – Innovative Use of Technology 2016, 2015 Leading Queensland Back-End Construction Law Firm – Doyle’s Guide to the Australian Legal Profession 2009, 2008 Independently recognised as a leading Brisbane firm in the practice areas of Insurance | Building & Construction | 2015 Leading Australian Aviation Law Firm – Doyle’s Guide to Mergers & Acquisitions | Energy & Resources the Australian Legal Profession 2008 Winner Queensland Law Society Employer of Choice NB: Due to the extensive nature of this publication and the pace of reforms and judicial consideration there may be an absence of reference to a recent case or some references to legislation and its provisions which are no longer current, yet proclaimed, amended or repealed. This publication attempts to draw out the most significant points in the relevant legislation. Whilst all care has been taken to ensure that the most up to date information has been included, not all cases or aspects of the legislation have been considered. The material contained in this publication is in the nature of general comment only, and neither purports nor is intended to be advice on any particular matter. No reader should act on the basis of any matter contained in this publication without considering and, if necessary, taking appropriate professional advice upon his or her own particular circumstance. © Carter Newell Lawyers 2016 Australian Civil Liability Guide Contributors Paul Hopkins Amy Gill Katherine Bland Patrick Mead Rochelle Rieck Megan Butterworth Rebecca Stevens Allison Bailey Jillian Commins Michael Gapes Ryan Stehlik Sadia Stathis Mark Brookes Christian Breen Rebecca Wilson David Rodighiero David Fisher Brett Sherwin Glenn Biggs Rebecca Johns Tom Pepper Stephen White Sarah Tuhtan Madeline Condon Michael Bath Cameron Rodgers Foreword by The Honourable David A Ipp AO QC Formerly Commissioner of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption Formerly Justice, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales Endorsement by The Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG Carter Newell Publications Brisbane • Sydney • Melbourne AUSTRALIAN CIVIL LIABILITY GUIDE 10TH EDITION FOREWORD Carter Newell Lawyers are to be commended for their publication ‘Australian Civil Liability Guide’. The legislation that, since 2002, has reformed tort law in Australia has created a maze. The tangled web of statutory provisions has been made even more complex by the judgments of courts in every jurisdiction that have tried to apply and clarify the various provisions that have fallen for decision. One of the most time-consuming problems for lawyers who have to grapple with the subtleties of the legislation involved is the difficulty in finding the relevant material. This may comprise the legislation applicable, the cases that have considered the particular issue, similar legislation in other jurisdictions, and relevant cases in those jurisdictions. Carter Newell’s publication enables one, quickly, to undertake the desired research simply and efficiently. The material is comprehensive and well-organised. The legislation is sensibly divided into different categories annotated with cases and commentary. Each category deals separately with each State and Territory. The language used is clear and direct. The time and trouble that has been taken in the production of the guide is obvious. Its quality as a reference work speaks for itself. It is an extremely helpful tool for any tort lawyer, whether practitioner or academic, and for any person who is interested in the changes to Australian tort law that have occurred since 2002. The Honourable Justice David A Ipp AO QC ENDORSEMENT Insurance law was the first area of law I knew and when I started there were no publications such as this 9th edition Australian Civil Liability Guide. The State by State break down highlighting the effects of the tort reform introduced in 2002; the cases reviewed, interpretation and assessment of heads of damage clearly demonstrate an excellent understanding of this area of law by the team at Carter Newell Lawyers. This publication is a great resource and a fine example of why I have always felt at home in the family of insurance lawyers. The Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG © Carter Newell 2016 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Cases ............................................................................................................................................. xiv Table of Statutes .........................................................................................................................................xix INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Background to the Australian tort reform ...................................................................................................... 1 Commentary .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Future reform ................................................................................................................................................. 1 QUEENSLAND .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Application of Statutory Reforms .................................................................................................................. 4 Pre-court Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 4 Compulsory conference .......................................................................................................................... 7 Commencing court proceedings ............................................................................................................. 7 The Law of Negligence – Scope of Duty of Care .......................................................................................... 8 Standard of care ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Causation ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Obvious risk ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Dangerous recreational activities ........................................................................................................... 11 Liability of public authorities ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 12 Liability of volunteers and Good Samaritans ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 12 Liability for mental harm ........................................................................................................................ 13 Intoxication and illegal activity ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bill Madden and Janine Mcilwraith, Australian Medical Liability, (Lexisnexis Butterworths 2008) 325 Pp
    BOOK REVIEW TRACEY CARVER∗ Bill Madden and Janine McIlwraith, Australian Medical Liability, (LexisNexis Butterworths 2008) 325 pp In July 2002, in response to the perceived crisis in the insurance industry (particularly in the medical, public liability, and professional indemnity insurance sectors), a panel headed by Ipp JA was asked to inquire into the law of negligence and develop a series of proposals for reform. On 2 October 2002, the panel released the Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report1 which has subsequently been implemented in whole, or in part, via civil liability legislation in each Australian jurisdiction. Consequently: with the introduction of various civil liability legislation around the country (hereafter the Civil Liability Acts), tort law in Australia can no longer be regarded as largely a common law field. Tort law must now well and truly grapple with theoretical and practical issues of statutory scope and interpretation that have arisen in many other fields of law.2 In this context, Australian Medical Liability, whilst acknowledging the continued relevance of the common law, uses the Civil Liability Acts ‘as a foundation for its analysis of the Australian legal framework relevant to the civil liability of medical’3 practitioners and health care professionals. In doing so it summarises key decisions and legislation, and provides an easy to read and authoritative commentary on the various areas of Australian medical liability in a post Civil Liability Act environment. Additionally, where interpretation of the legislation is unclear, uncertain, or without judicial interpretation, this is stated by the authors and predictions are often made based on recent case trends.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Negligence: Duty of Care, Standard of Care, and the Notion of Personal Responsibility
    3rd International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2016) Law of Negligence: Duty of Care, Standard of Care, and the Notion of Personal Responsibility Qiang He, Jia-Ling Feng, Wan-Yun Huang College of Management, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract—This essay’s main body divides into two parts. After a above and give a clearly understand of duty of care for brief background of the historical development of the law of negligence. negligence, the first part is to demonstrate the principles of Duty of Care and the Standard of Care, including duty of care II. BACKGROUND for negligent acts and the guidelines of breaching the standard The tort of negligence is a vital aspect of the tort law, of care. Then it will analyze the special duty of care within parent and child from three aspects. Finally the essay will because compare to other tort, there is a large amount of provide a conclusion to summarize all the information above negligence cases occurred in real life than others (Davies & and give a clearly understand of duty of care for negligence. Malkin, 2008). Before the landmark case of Donohue v Stevenson [1932], most of the counts did not consider similar Keywords-duty of care; standard of care; the notion of cases as negligence (Barravecchio, 2013). personal responsibility Since the 1980s, there was a development of negligent advice in Australia with the case Shaddock and Associates v. I. INTRODUCTION Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancement Would Be Within the Bounds of the Judicial Law-Making Function Has Been Largely Overlooked
    The Judicial Law-Making Function and a Tort of Invasion of Personal Privacy Aiden Lerch Abstract There has long been debate about whether there should be a tort of invasion of personal privacy. While the debate has traditionally focused on the precise formulation of the tort, consideration of whether the tort’s advancement would be within the bounds of the judicial law-making function has been largely overlooked. Extant literature validly points out that invasions of privacy are now commonplace in our technological society. However, societal change alone is unlikely to be sufficient to justify the establishment of a new tort. This article explores whether there is a more principled justification for the common law development of a tort of invasion of personal privacy by critically assessing whether it can be integrated into the underlying foundations of contemporary Australian tort law. It is argued that upon an acceptance that the rights-based theory provides a leading account of Australian tort law, it can be determined that the judicial advancement of a tort of invasion of personal privacy would be justified and legitimate. Please cite this article as: Aiden Lerch, ‘The Judicial Law-Making Function and a Tort of Invasion of Personal Privacy’ (2021) 43(2) Sydney Law Review 133 (advance). ThisADVANCE work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-ND 4.0). As an open access journal, unmodified content is free to use with proper attribution. Please email [email protected] for permission and/or queries. © 2021 Sydney Law Review and authors.
    [Show full text]
  • 194 [2021] the Cambridge Law Journal
    194The Cambridge Law Journal [2021] case is now a major authority in modern discussion of online publication (i.e. a land- mark in the evolution of defamation), it also demonstrates superbly a difficulty which defamation law still has to confront: whether an imputation’s defamatory character is to be decided by what reasonable members of society do think, or by what they should think. On this issue, what the courts have said and what they have done are not always one and the same. Until this tension is resolved, we will continue to see even specialist members of the libel bench struggle with difficult questions of social judgment (e.g. Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 (Q.B.), [2017] 4 W.L.R. 197, at [46]–[48]). In the book’s defence, landmarks are not the same yesterday and today and for- ever. Byrne v Deane was barely discussed until the Internet age dawned. Charleston reminds us how transient doctrinal boundaries can be within the law of torts. If Counsel’s pleadings had only been more ambitious, Charleston might well have been the case that set defamation on a path towards a new life as a dignitary tort, not too dissimilar from the Roman actio iniuriarum. But such a revolution was not to be; the fate of Charleston has been as a less glorious landmark on meaning. The tensions in Youssoupoff and Byrne v Deane are interesting and require refor- mers’ attention, but whether these cases will endure as landmarks at the boundaries of defamation is less certain. Whilst a greater engagement with landmarks at doctrinal boundaries could have contributed to the discussion of reform in this field, the book does not claim to have all the answers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sullivan Visits the Commonwealth
    COMPARATIVE ANALOGIES: SULLIVAN VISITS THE COMMONWEALTH Marie-France Major" In three recent decisions, the courts of three different countries have used the comparative method to fashion a judicial solution to a particular problem. In trying to reconcile free speech issues with concerns for the protection of individual reputations, the House of Lords in DerbyshireCounty Council,' the High Court of Australia in Theophanous,2 and the Supreme 4 Court of Canada in Hill' all referred to the American decision of Sullivan. An examination of these decisions demonstrates the tendency of courts to engage in comparative analysis when faced with difficult problems.5 They also illustrate how the comparative method and comparative materials constitute a source of inspiration for legal decisions by offering a wide array of solutions.6 The three recent Commonwealth decisions are clear examples of the different ways in which foreign materials can be used by courts.7 The English decision illustrates how courts can engage in comparative analysis to extrapolate general principles which are then applied to a particular issue. The Australian decision demonstrates how national courts can refer to foreign jurisprudence to copy or fashion a solution to the problem they are faced with, whereas the Canadian decision shows how courts can use the comparative method in order to reject a particular solution. I. THE ISSUE: DEFAMATORY PUBLICATION In Derbyshire,Theophanous, and Hill,plaintiffs had brought defamation actions and were seeking damages for loss of reputation. The issue before the courts was whether the persons who had published or uttered damaging words * Marie-France Major, B.Sc.Soc.
    [Show full text]
  • Supervision of Students: an Exploratory Comparative Analysis Paul Babie, Charles J. Russo, Greg M. Dickinson
    Supervision of Students: An Exploratory Comparative Analysis Paul Babie, University of Adelaide, Australia Charles J. Russo, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA Greg M. Dickinson, University of Western Ontario, Canada Abstract A major challenge confronting educators throughout the world is maintaining safe learning environments for students. When difficulties arise in the area of what is commonly referred to as negligence, school officials may face years of lengthy, and costly, litigation. In light of their shared British common law system of law, this article reviews the law of negligence in Australia, the United States, and Canada. After examining the elements of negligence in all three of these Nations, the article offers a brief analysis of the similarities with regard to how negligence applies in the three countries. Introduction A major challenge confronting educators throughout the world is maintaining safe learning environments for students. When difficulties arise in the area of what is commonly referred to as negligence, school officials may face years of lengthy, and costly, litigation. Moreover, although school officials tend to avoid liability in all but the most serious cases, having to deal with the legal system and related frustrations can have a significant impact on the operation of schools. In light of their shared British common law system of law, this article reviews the law of negligence in Australia, the United States, and Canada. After examining the elements of negligence in all three of these Nations, the article offers a brief analysis of the similarities with regard to how negligence applies in the three countries. Australia The Elements of Negligence In Australian, a plaintiff must satisfy three elements in order to succeed in an action for negligence: duty, breach and damage.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the FAILURE of UNIVERSAL THEORIES of TORT LAW James
    THE FAILURE OF UNIVERSAL THEORIES OF TORT LAW James Goudkamp* and John Murphy** Many scholars have offered theories that purport to explain the whole of the law of torts. At least some of these theories do not seem to be specific to a single jurisdiction. Several appear to endeavour to account for tort law in at least the major common law jurisdictions, or even throughout the common law world. These include Ernest Weinrib’s corrective justice theory, Robert Stevens’s rights theory, and Richard Posner’s economic theory. This article begins by explaining why it is appropriate to understand these three theories as universal theories of tort law, which is an important feature of these theories that has not hitherto been properly appreciated. This explanation draws upon various overt claims (or other strong intimations) made by the theorists themselves to the effect that this is how their respective accounts should be understood. The article then proceeds to test these theories, all of which are leading accounts of tort law, against the evidence in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Not all of these theories have received a proper airing in these major common law jurisdictions, which is a gap in the literature that this article seeks to fill. The parts of tort law on which we focus are (1) the breach element of the action in negligence, (2) the law that determines when a duty of care will be owed in respect of pure economic * Fellow, Keble College, Oxford; Associate Professor, Oxford Law Faculty; Academic Fellow, Inner Temple; Senior Honorary Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia, Honorary Principal Fellow, School of Law, University of Wollongong, barrister, 7 King’s Bench Walk.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsibility for Iatrogenic Death in Australian Criminal Law
    RESPONSIBILITY FOR IATROGENIC DEATH IN AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL LAW DAVID J CARTER A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY 2017 ii CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged within the text. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. This research is supported by a Quentin Bryce Law Doctoral Scholarship. Production Note: Signature removed prior to publication. 29 September, 2017 iii iv ‘In gross negligence manslaughter, the jury…finds justice where the law cannot guide it.’1 - Alan Norrie ‘Nobody ever said that care would be easy’.2 - Annemarie Mol 1 Alan Norrie, Crime, Reason and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law (Cambridge University Press, 2001) 45. 2 Annemarie Mol, The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice (Routledge, 2008) 87. v vi ABSTRACT Iatrogenic harm is harm, including death, that arises in the course of medical or healthcare treatment and is caused by the application of treatment itself, rather than by the underlying disease or injury. Each year, some 27,000 deaths in Australian acute care hospitals are associated with iatrogenic harm. Such harm in its iatrogenic form raises for us, in an urgent contemporary setting, some of the perennial questions associated with moral and legal answerability and questions of the limits of medicine, the difficulty of healing and of the politics of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation and the Shape of Tort Law
    1 Introduction: Legislation and the Shape of Tort Law TT ARVIND AND JENNY STEELE So far as we are aware, this volume represents the first extended treatment of the role of legislation in the law of tort. As the contributions to this volume demonstrate, legislation is a vital and inherent part of, and influence upon, the law of tort; yet current tort theory is so focused on common law alone that it risks handing the study of legislation to other disci- plines. This volume is an attempt to remedy that problem. In this introductory chapter, we draw upon the diverse and original contributions that follow in order to begin a new appre- ciation of the contours of statutory influence in the law of tort. This exercise, however, raises broader questions about the implications of omitting legis- lation from the centre of tort scholarship. In a concluding chapter,1 we draw out these themes in greater detail, discussing the deeper causes and implications of the present mar- ginalisation of statute and the possible impact for tort scholarship of incorporating legisla- tive influence more fully within its frame. I. TORT LAW WITHOUT THE LEGISLATURE Our starting point is that there has been a relative lack of scholarly attention devoted to legislation in the law of tort, which this collection seeks to redress.2 It is not that the exist- ence of legislation has gone entirely unnoticed. Tort lawyers know, of course, that there are many statutes applicable to the law of tort; and are well aware of the key provisions. Close attention has also been paid in recent time to reforms seen as being unsympathetic to the law as previously developed, particularly in Australia, where there has been an upsurge in legislation in response to an ‘insurance crisis’ perceived to be related to the principles of the law of tort.3 And there is a long-standing concern, particularly prominent in the United 1 ‘Bringing Statute (Back) onto the Radar: Implications’ ch 21.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Economic Torts and Anti-Secondary Boycott Laws in Australia
    INHIBITING ECONOMIC COERCION BY GROUPS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ECONOMIC TORTS AND ANTI-SECONDARY BOYCOTT LAWS IN AUSTRALIA A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy David John Goodwin LLB (Qld), Grad Dip Comm Law (Monash), M Bus (Logistics) (RMIT) Graduate School of Business and Law College of Business RMIT University September 2017 i CANDIDATE’S STATEMENT I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and, ethics procedures and guidelines have been followed. I acknowledge the support I have received for my research through the provision of an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. (Signed) …………………………………………………….. David John Goodwin 15 September 2017 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS i Acknowledgements ix ii Thesis Abstract 1 CHAPTER ONE – THE SUBJECT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE THESIS I INTRODUCTION 2 II THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 6 A The Contest of Rights 7 B Uncertainties under Australian Law 8 C Control Mechanisms for the Economic Torts 9 D Illegality and Unlawful Means 11 E Combination and Relative Power 12 F Limited Recourse to Justification Defences 13 G Private Law and Fundamental Rights 13 H The
    [Show full text]
  • Lacunae and Litigants: a Study of Negligence Cases in the High Court of Australia in the First Decade of the 21St Century and Beyond
    LACUNAE AND LITIGANTS: A STUDY OF NEGLIGENCE CASES IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA IN THE FIRST DECADE OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND BEYOND PAMELA STEWART* AND ANITA STUHMCKE† This article examines a snapshot in time of appeals in negligence cases to the High Court during the first 11 years of the 21st century. In total, 78 negligence cases decided by the High Court during this period are analysed. Cases granted leave to appeal to the High Court are exceptional, raising novel or difficult issues of law and depend upon an injured plaintiff’s practical and financial ability to access legal services. This article analyses the gender and age of litigants, and the accident type in these appeals in order to determine what, if anything, can be learnt about tort litigation patterns. This study found that more men litigated in High Court appeals in the period under study than any other group. When analysed against the background of existing evidence as to: the nature and type of injuries suffered in Australia which require hospitalisation; who is injured; who litigates at first instance; who appeals; and the nature of negligence cases, it becomes clear that adult male plaintiffs appear more often in tort law than women and children due to more men being injured as a group and female and child injuries happening more often in no-fault contexts. The data also indicate that plaintiffs are far less likely to succeed in negligence appeals to the High Court than defendants. It is argued that this emphasis upon personal responsibility in the tort of negligence seems set to continue in light of the statutory tort law reforms which took place across Australia in 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Reform in Australia: Speech to the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association Queensland State Conference, 7 February 2003, Hyatt Regency, Sanctuary Cove
    1 Tort Law Reform in Australia: Speech to the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association Queensland State Conference, 7 February 2003, Hyatt Regency, Sanctuary Cove 1. Introduction This afternoon is my opportunity to contribute to the debate on the topical question of tort law reform. A recent article in the New York Times described “reform” as “a capacious and loaded term usually used by defendants.”1 It is, then, with a sense of trepidation that I broach the subject at a conference of plaintiff lawyers. I expect that many of you will have firm opinions on the question of tort reform, and even within this Association I expect there is range of differing views on the subject. I look forward to hearing those views as the conference progresses. Much has been said in the past year about a crisis in tort law said to be caused by over-litigious plaintiffs and lawyers, resulting in sky-rocketing insurance premiums that put at risk the continuation of ordinary functions in society such as medical treatment and community events.2 Calls for reform of the tort system have reached such a high pitch that the governments of every state and territory in Australia have moved to implement new legislation. This whirlwind of legislative action will bring about substantial changes to the law of negligence, for the most part in a fashion that reduces the quantum of damages available to plaintiffs who are injured by negligent defendants. The stated 1 Adam Liptak, “Shot in the Arm for Tort Overhaul” New York Times, 17 November 2002. 2 See for example J.J.
    [Show full text]