Avoiding Boundary Violations: Recommendations for Managing Attraction to and From Clients in Response to the Healthcare Providers Service Organization’s 2019 Report

The standards regarding sexual relationships with clients are among the most clearly stated in the codes of ethics for the American Counseling Association and the American Mental Health Counselors Association. However, the majority of liability claims filed against counselors are for boundary violations of a sexual/romantic nature. Aggregate insurance liability data are presented, followed by management strategies related to attraction.

THE CORPORATE GROUP: SYSTEM, DESIGN AND RESPONSIBILITY

Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc presages more liberal criteria for determining when a parent company owes a duty of care to third parties injured by subsidiary activities. It invokes systems language and points to potential parent company liability for omissions in managing the group. This article develops these ideas. It portrays the corporate group in systems-managerial terms. The parent creates group-wide structures and deploys management strategies and integrating mechanisms that facilitate achievement of its purposes. It has a substantial causal influence upon subsidiary acts and omissions. Prima facie the parent cannot avoid extended liability claims by hiding behind the “pure omissions” rule.

The Question of the Applicable Law in Cross-Border Claims on Product Liability: Reflections from India

The blurring of international barriers has impacted the nature and complexity of tortious claims and, in particular, those concerning product liability. Products manufactured in one country are often sold or used in another State – and there is often a separation in time and space between the occurrence of the harmful behaviour the resultant injury. For this reason, countries across the globe have increasingly considered it inappropriate to subject such claims to the same mechanism to identify the governing law that applies to other tortious claims of different nature such as negligence, nuisance or defamation. The EU, the UK, Australia, Canada, and India’s BRICS partners – Russia and China – are examples of legal systems that have developed a special conflict of law rules on the applicable law in product liability claims. In contrast, the principles of Indian private international law do not contain any special rule. The applicable law is determined on the basis of a uniform principle that extends to all cross-border disputes on tort. The paper provides a critical evaluation of the mechanism to identify the applicable law in international disputes on product liability. It highlights the predicaments in extending the uniform rule to product liability claims and demonstrates how it debilitates access to justice and is not suitable for disputes that arise from accidents caused by products such as autonomous vehicles, which incorporate new technology. Consequently, the paper suggests workable solutions to develop the Indian conflict-of-law rules on the subject.

Die Präventionswirkung des Staatshaftungsrechts

This contribution addresses the question of whether and to what extent state liability law has a preventive effect. The question focuses on whether the (mere) existence of claims under state liability law creates an incentive to prevent unlawful actions against citizens. Cases in which an incentive is created for an individual public official (individual preventive effect) are differentiated from those in which an incentive is created for the state as an organisation (organisational preventive effect). Based on an economic analysis of law, the article demonstrates – in abstract terms and detached from concrete bases for claims – that both effects can occur: On the one hand, liability claims can prevent public officials from deliberately making unlawful decisions and as well as increase the diligence and so the probability of a lawful decision. On the other hand, liability claims can influence an organisation in the state sector in such a way that those responsible strive to ensure lawful decisions by means of the improved structuring and scrutiny of the decision-making process. To establish the specific preventive effect of an individual claim under (German) state liability law, it is necessary to consider its specific structure. The allocation of liability and the possibility of an internal recourse determine whether the preventive effect achieved is (more) an individual or an organisational one. The decisive criteria for the intensity of the preventive effect include the type, extent, degree of collectivisation, and limitations of the liability claim as well as its enforceability. Regardless of the necessary differentiation, it may be concluded that the claims of German state liability law emphasise an organisational preventive effect. While they implement the preventive effect to some extent overall, they do not fully do so. There are viable reasons for this restraint, considering the at times contrary objective of an efficiently acting administration. As a result, as this contribution concludes, from a legal policy perspective, a preventive effect also depends on considering additions and alternatives to state liability law.

Ongoing downplaying of the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos by vested interests

Industries that mine, manufacture and sell asbestos or asbestos-containing products have a long tradition of promoting the use of asbestos, while placing the burden of economic and health costs on workers and society. This has been successfully done in recent years and decades in spite of the overwhelming evidence that all asbestos types are carcinogenic and cause asbestosis. In doing so, the asbestos industry has undermined the WHO campaign to reach a worldwide ban of asbestos and to eliminate asbestos-related diseases. Even worse, in recent years they succeeded in continuing asbestos mining and consuming in the range of about 1.3 million tons annually. Nowadays, production takes place predominantly in Russia, Kazakhstan and China. Chrysotile is the only asbestos type still sold and represents 95% of asbestos traded over the last century.The asbestos industry, especially its PR agency, the International Chrysotile Association, ICA, financed by asbestos mining companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe and asbestos industrialists in India and Mexico, continues to be extremely active by using slogans such as chrysotile can be used safely.Another approach of the asbestos industry and of some of its insurance agencies is to broadly defeat liability claims of asbestos victims.In doing so they systematically use inappropriate science produced by their own and/or by industry-affiliated researchers. Some of the latter were also engaged in producing defense material for other industries including the tobacco industry. Frequent examples of distributing such disinformation include questioning or denying established scientific knowledge about adverse health effects of asbestos. False evidence continues to be published in scientific journals and books.The persisting strong influence of vested asbestos-related interests in workers and public health issues including regulations and compensation necessitate ongoing alertness, corrections and appropriate reactions in scientific as well as public media and policy advisory bodies.

Staatsklimahaftung

Climate change litigation is becoming increasingly important. This thesis deals with the question whether state liability claims against Germany or the EU can be justified, if commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not met. For this purpose, the claim under public liability according to § 839 German Civil Code in connection with Art. 34 German Basic Law, the liability of the EU-Member States and the liability of the European Union according to Art. 340 II TFEU are discussed. At the end of the thesis, considerations on the practical perspectives of state liability are made in order to improve their prospects of success.

From Automation to Autonomy: Legal and Ethical Responsibility Gaps in Artificial Intelligence Innovation

The increasing prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in daily life and the evolving capacity of these systems to process data and act without human input raise important legal and ethical concerns. This article identifies three primary AI actors in the value chain (innovators, providers, and users) and three primary types of AI (automation, augmentation, and autonomy). It then considers responsibility in AI innovation from two perspectives: (i) strict liability claims arising out of the development, commercialization, and use of products with built-in AI capabilities (designated herein as “AI artifacts”); and (ii) an original research study on the ethical practices of developers and managers creating AI systems and AI artifacts. The ethical perspective is important because, at the moment, the law is poised to fall behind technological reality—if it hasn’t already. Consideration of the liability issues in tandem with ethical perspectives yields a more nuanced assessment of the likely consequences and adverse impacts of AI innovation. Companies should consider both legal and ethical strategies thinking about their own liability and ways to limit it, as well as policymakers considering AI regulation ex ante.