Breach Of Statutory Duty Research Articles

Exploring remedies for defective artificial intelligence aids in clinical decision-making in post-Brexit England and Wales

Artificially intelligent systems (AISs) are in development to aid the clinicians and patients of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. We assess the statutory requirements for product liability claims against producers of defective AISs in clinical use and set out the criteria for bringing a successful claim against a producer to the courts of England and Wales. We argue that the mismatch between product liability and safety regulation leaves patients, and consumers more generally, without an adequate remedy for the consequences of AIS defects. We also discuss the intertwinement of the consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. Recent developments such as United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and the updated Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 are discussed. In addition, we offer novel discussion regarding the tort of ‘breach of statutory duty’ as provided for by the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021.

Why the supreme court of Ghana erred on the proper application of the doctrine of vicarious liability in its recent decision in Kwadwo Appiah v. Kwabena Anane

The Common law has evolved in leaps and bounds since the Normans Conquest of 1066. Certain areas of private law including the tort of negligence have developed into settled doctrines well known and generally followed in many common law jurisdictions. Vicarious liability is one of such well-developed doctrines with clear prerequisites for its deployment. The Supreme Court of Ghana is also required to follow the doctrine of vicarious liability unless there is a clear reason for a departure. The apex Court is mandated to justify any departure from its previous decisions with sound judicial analysis of the precedents vis-à-vis the case under consideration. In the case under review, the Supreme Court obviously ignored the established rules for the application of the doctrine of vicarious liability. The Court equally failed to justify the need for such a monumental departure from the tenets of the doctrine. The Supreme Court of Ghana invoked the doctrine of vicarious liability when the most basic of requirements for its applicability- such as the existence of an employment relationship or its analogous relationship between the tortfeasor and the Defendant-had not been established on the facts before the Court. The burden of this paper is to demonstrate that the Court erred when it failed to follow well-established principles for holding the defendant vicariously liable for a tort or breach of statutory duty by the tortfeasor. The paper expresses grave concern that unless the Supreme Court’s decision is departed from by the Court there is going to be a monumental confusion in Ghana’s Legal System as all other courts are bound to follow decisions of the Supreme Court.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

A Million Winslows: private liability of universities for ragging in India

ABSTRACTRagging has become a serious social evil. Millions of university students are ragged in India every year. While a perpetrator can be sued by the victim; it has not dented the escalation of ragging. Holding institutions responsible for preventing ragging is the only way to curb it. This can be by way of both public and private accountability of universities. The paper focuses on the latter. We submit a victim of ragging can sue the university for failure to prevent ragging for breach of the university–student contract, for negligence, under vicarious liability, breach of statutory duty, contravention of a non-delegable duty, and on the basis of misfeasance in public office by a rogue university officer. A private action will have a salutary effect on society, in particular universities.

Legislating Dangerously: Bad Samaritans, Good Society, and the Heroism Act 2015

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 is a troublesome statute. The Act requires that, when considering a claim brought against a defendant in negligence or for breach of statutory duty, the court must assess whether that party was ‘acting for the benefit of society or any of its members’ (section 2), or ‘demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or interests of others’ (section 3), or was ‘acting heroically’ (section 4). However laudable the Coalition Government's attempts to foster a ‘Big Society’ might have been, this enactment was not the proper vehicle to achieve it. Some provisions merely repeat longstanding common law principles. Others may have been intended to amend the common law to encourage ‘good citizenship’, but fall well short of that aim. And some aspects of the Act's drafting have the (perhaps unintended) potential to sit uncomfortably with established common law negligence principles.

Protecting Economic Interests through the Nominate Tort Action for Breach of Statutory Duty

The civil action for Breach of Statutory Duty (BSD) is most often invoked in cases of personal injury, often in the industrial context. But there is a long history of BSD actions being used to protect economic interests, in the form of compensation for pure economic loss, and dealing with damage to specific property. This paper will explore the varying ways in which the BSD action has developed to protect economic interests, taking into account principles relating to specific so-called “statutory torts” as well as the general common law action based on implied Parliamentary intention.

Current Issues of Directors’ Liability – The Scottish View

The author reviews three recent Scottish cases in company law – Eastford v. Gillespie, Naxos and William Campbell. These cases add to the discussion of a number of issues in company law such as the role of the common law in the sections on directors’ duties of the 2006 Companies Act, lifting the corporate veil and generally a director’s civil liability for breach of statutory duty and in particular failure to arrange employers’ liability insurance. The author critically evaluates these cases in the context of Scots law within the UK and explains how these can be seen to develop a distinct Scottish view on company law matters while contributing to the development of UK company law as a whole. The author also considers relevant legislative initiatives on the part of Scottish and UK governmental bodies and Parliaments.

Remedy for Criminal Breach of Statutory Duty

Remedy for Criminal Breach of Statutory Duty

Authority or Reason? The Economic Consequences of Liability for Breach of Statutory Duty in a Comparative Perspective

Authority or Reason? The Economic Consequences of Liability for Breach of Statutory Duty in a Comparative Perspective

Part 24: Statutory compensation

In general if a person alleges that they have suffered harm and wish to receive compensation, then they have to prove that the harm resulted from a person's negligence or breach of statutory duty. In other words, this country has a system of fault liability as opposed to the no-fault liability schemes in New Zealand, Sweden and Finland, for example.

EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY—ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES—REDUCTION TO REFLECT FAULT OF OTHER PARTIES

THE claimant was employed for 39 years as a marine fitter, working for various employers. For 24 of those years he was exposed to asbestos, and eventually he developed asbestosis, presumably as a result of that exposure. He sued the defendants, one of the firms that had employed him; about 12 years of his exposure, half the total, were suffered through the defendants’ negligence and breach of statutory duty. General damages were assessed at £32,000. The issue was whether or to what extent those damages should be reduced, to reflect the fact that other firms (now either insolvent or untraceable) shared the responsibility for the claimant’s exposure to risk.

Damages for breach of statutory duty in welfare law

Damages for breach of statutory duty in welfare law

Cross-border water pollution: two paradigmatic Dutch cases

Trans-boundary water pollution disputes before civil courts raise complex questions of substantive tort law, of standing for public interest groups and of private international law. As for the international jurisdiction of Dutch courts with respect to most European-based defendants, the EC 1968 Brussels Convention applies. This instrument provides for competence of the Dutch courts at the place(s) where the harmful event has occurred (the forum delicti). To date, the European Court of Justice has not yet decided whether the forum delicti also applies in situations of threatened wrong. Regarding Dutch substantive tort law, the applicable law in the two dispute this article focuses on, Dutch-based environmental protection groups have successfully sued foreign defendants on the basis of breach of statutory duty, whereas they are facing judicial reluctance when suing on the basis of breach of unwritten law.

Health Surveillance for Hospital Employees Exposed to Respiratory Sensitizers

Seventy-eight National Health Service occupational health departments were invited to take part in an audit of health surveillance for employees exposed to respiratory sensitising agents. Most of the departments had responsibility for workers using glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, methyl methacrylate and X-ray processing chemicals, but the extent to which health surveillance was provided for these employees varied. Many departments had no written policies for surveillance, and the methods used were often unnecessarily labour intensive. Only a minority of departments had made arrangements for communicating the collective results of screening to employees, failure to do so indicating a breach of statutory duty. There were major discrepancies between departments in criteria for excluding employees from work with respiratory sensitising agents. Occupational physicians caring for hospital staff should discuss and establish guidelines for effective surveillance of people working with the commonly encountered sensitisers.

Codifying the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty

Codifying the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty

The legal relevance of resources - or a lack of resources - in community care

Abstract This article considers the likely approach of the courts to community care litigation in which the availability of resources is an issue. It explores the way in which the forum chosen for the dispute - private or public law - might inform this approach, and examines existing case law from the general welfare law field which has largely skirted around the issue of rationing and resource allocation. The article focuses on the difference between duty and discretion, particularly in the context of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and the potential significance of the distinction, so far as an authority's lack of resources is concerned. The writer concludes, first, that a shortage of resources is a factor which it is lawful to take into account in the exercise of most welfare functions under this Act and other statutory community care provisions; second, that a lack of funds might constitute a defence to a public or private law allegation of breach of statutory duty in this field. M...

Ashingdane Case

107Human rights — Arrest and detention — Detention of mentally disordered offender at special security hospital — Recommendation for transfer to open psychiatric hospital — Transfer not carried out because of trade union action — Whether continued detention in secure hospital unlawful — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5(1)(e)Human rights — Access to courts — Claim for breach of statutory duty under Mental Health Act barred — Whether denial of access to courts — Whether violation of right to judicial determination of lawfulness of detention — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 5(4) and 6(1)

Breach of Statutory Duty and Unlawful Means in Strike Law

Breach of Statutory Duty and Unlawful Means in Strike Law

Negligence and breach of statutory duty

Negligence and breach of statutory duty

HUGHES v. ARMITAGE BROTHERS

May 7, 1974 Master and Servant — Breach of statutory duty — Workman working on platform of scaffolding erected by employer — Scaffolding not properly secured — Workman injured on falling off — Loss of one kidney — Assessment of damage — Approach to assessment of damage — Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 94),regs. 6(2), 15(1).