Liability in negligence of the mentally ill

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 366-374
Author(s):  
Maria Orchard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Court Of Appeal

An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objective standard of a reasonable person and does not take into account a defendant’s personal characteristics. In Dunnage v Randall, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a person’s mental illness should be considered when defining the appropriate standard of care. The court held that the deceased, an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who set himself on fire, was subject to the objective standard, breached his duty by failing to act with reasonable care and was therefore liable for the burns his nephew sustained while attempting to prevent the incident. The court further found that a defendant can only escape liability for negligently caused injury if their mental illness entirely eliminates responsibility, thus articulating a strict approach towards the liability in tort of persons suffering from mental illness. As this comment will discuss, the Dunnage decision is a handy illustration of the basic tenets of the tort of negligence, revealing the policy considerations at play and questioning the underlying rationale of the tort law regime.

5. Breach of Duty

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Breach Of Duty

This chapter examines breach of duty in tort law. It discusses the factors that the court considers in determining whether the defendant is in breach of his duty of care to the claimant. These include the foreseeability of harm to the claimant, the appropriate standard of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, and the conduct of the defendant in comparison to the expected standard of care. This chapter suggests that the question of whether the defendant has breached a duty of care is a mixed one of law and fact and that the standard of care required of the defendant is an exclusively legal construct and based on the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person.

3. Negligence II: Breach of Duty

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Dr Karen Dyer
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Sporting Events ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Special Skill ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of breach of duty. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of duty of care in negligence; the objective standard of care: the ‘reasonable person’ and factors relevant to the standard of care; variations of the objective standard: children, emergency situations, sporting events, and skilled persons ‘professing to have a special skill’; and res ipsa loquitur.

The Enduring Legacy of ‘Reckless Disregard’

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McArdle
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Canadian Province ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Personal injury at common law has spawned many cases where sports participants have inflicted injury either upon other participants or upon spectators/bystanders. This paper is not an exhaustive analysis of those ‘sports torts' cases but focuses instead upon the impact of Wooldridge v Sumner, a Court of Appeal decision that was legally sound but based upon highly significant errors of fact, and which has subsequently been advanced before the courts in two jurisdictions as authority for untenable propositions that concern both the standard of care and the duty of care owed by sports participants. While a consideration of the authorities prior to Wooldridge illustrates that there was never a basis at common law for the argument that either the standard or the duty of care differed from that pertaining in non-sporting contexts, the case has been appropriated by counsel in order to argue along those lines even though Wooldridge is not authority for either proposition. On some occasions those arguments have actually received the support of the courts of England and Wales and of the Canadian Province of British Columbia. Despite the existence in both jurisdictions of more recent authorities that ought to have heralded the demise of both concepts, they have proved remarkably tenacious.

scholarly journals Attitudes of psychiatry residents toward mental illness

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 382-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milica Pejovic-Milovancevic ◽  
Dusica Lecic-Tosevski ◽  
Lazar Tenjovic ◽  
Saveta Draganic-Gajic ◽  
George Christodoulou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Psychiatry Residents ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Attitudes Toward Mental Illness ◽  
Opinions About Mental Illness

Introduction. Attitudes of lay people and physicians towards mentally ill patients are frequently highly biased. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in attitudes of psychiatry and internal medicine residents toward mental illness and to establish the relationship between their attitudes and their personal characteristics. Material and methods. The sample consisted of 45 psychiatry and 36 internal medicine residents. The attitudes toward mental illness were assessed using Opinions about Mental Illness Questionnaire (OMI) and personality traits were examined using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). Results. Our findings showed that in regard to internal medicine residents, psychiatry residents do not consider mentally ill patients to be inferior and dangerous. Psychiatry residents have a benevolent attitude toward the mentally ill. Personality traits of psychiatry residents were not related to their opinions about mental illness. Discussion. The results suggest that there is a need to develop strategies that would bring about changes in the curriculum of training programs for medical residents, including proper training in mental health issues. Such strategies should help in destigmatization of persons with mental disorders and increase the competence of physicians to deal with mentally ill. .

scholarly journals Personal Tax Planning: Due Diligence Defence to Liability for Unpaid Statutory Remittances

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-312
Author(s):  
Wayne D. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Pension Plan ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Employment Insurance ◽  
Outside Director ◽  
Withholding Taxes ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Several potentially onerous liabilities may be imposed on directors outside the provisions of the statute under which their corporation is incorporated or continued. In particular, some of the most common sources of personal liability for directors arise under statutes requiring the corporation to pay employee payroll source deductions (income tax, Canada Pension Plan contributions, and employment insurance premiums), withholding taxes owing by non-residents of Canada, and net goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax remittances. These statutory regimes all have certain features in common, including a statutory due diligence defence. This article examines the state of the law under the objective standard of care first adopted in the tax context by the Federal Court of Appeal in <i>Buckingham</i>. In particular, it examines the principles that guide jurisprudence on the due diligence defence, the factual circumstances that have met with success or failure for appellants, and how the defences apply differently depending on whether a director is an inside or outside director.

Should Tort Law Demand the Impossible?

2020 ◽  
pp. 373-392
Author(s):  
Adam Slavny
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Ought Implies Can ◽  
Objective Standard

This chapter critically examines the moral justification of two settled features of tort law—the objective standard of care and strict liability—insofar as they appear to violate the putative moral stricture “ought-implies-can.” The proposition that duties must be possible of fulfillment (and likewise, compliance with applicable normative reasons) has a pedigree stretching back to Immanuel Kant and is still widely assumed. Thus, this chapter begins by defending this foundational proposition on the grounds that normative reasons must be able to guide conduct. It notes that reasons that fail to comply with ought-implies-can are incapable of guiding conduct. This chapter then confronts arguments on behalf of the objective standard of care in negligence and strict liability, respectively, that purport to show that both doctrines sometimes justifiably violate ought-implies-can.

6. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

6. Breach of duty: the standard of care

2019 ◽  
pp. 60-72
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Profession ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Reasonable Person Standard ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Standard ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.

6. Breach of duty

2021 ◽  
pp. 131-162
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
Res Ipsa Loquitur

This chapter examines breach of duty in negligence. It discusses the factors that courts consider in determining whether defendants are in breach of their duties of care to claimants. In each case, these factors include the foreseeability of harm to the claimant, the appropriate standard of care owed by the defendant to the claimant, and the conduct of the defendant in comparison to the expected standard of care. This chapter suggests that the question of whether the defendant has breached a duty of care is a mixed one of law and fact and that the standard of care required of the defendant is an exclusively legal construct and based on the standard of a hypothetical reasonable person. The chapter considers also special issues involving proof of breach, most importantly in the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

Proposals for Reforming the Law of Self-Defence

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Pichhadze
Keyword(s):  
Reasonable Person ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Significant Attention ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Self Defence

The English law of self-defence has attracted significant attention following the controversial decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Martin. At the heart of the controversy is the determination of the reasonableness of a defendant's apprehension of the necessity to use a particular amount of force in self-defence. When comparing the defendant's apprehension and actions to those of a reasonable person in the same circumstances, what characteristics of the defendant must be attributable to the reasonable person in order for the test to be appropriate? This article argues that while the Court of Appeal's reluctance to allow a psychologically individualised standard of reasonableness may have been correct, the court should have reformulated the purely objective standard into a contextual objective standard. It is suggested that unless such reform is undertaken, the English law of self-defence will remain unduly constrained. Reform proposals by the Law Commission have made it clear that such reform is not on the horizon. As an alternative, the Law Commission proposed a reformulated defence of provocation. While this alternative is commendable, it does not remove the need to reform the objective standard of reasonableness in the law of self-defence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document