Search results

It is unclear from Canadian case law what the appropriate legal standards of care and regulation should be in athlete injury cases. This chapter provides an overview of existing legal standards and explores the question of participant liability in sport, especially ice hockey. It reviews the applicability of tort law, including both intentional torts and unintentional torts, and considers the applicability and impact of the notion of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (or voluntary assumption of risk).

The chapter is based on a review of Canadian case law.

Canadian courts have adopted varying standards whereby it is seemingly easier to prove negligence in certain provinces than others. We discuss the implications of these conflicting jurisdictional standards and the need for clearer and more consistent legal guidelines. Further, we show why appropriate legal standards should extend beyond purely objective and legalistic interpretations to more subjective and sociological factors that place sports violence and sports injury in social context.

It is well established that courts should and in fact do require a higher level of care by people working within their profession than by amateurs. Adequate care is simply more within reach for the professional than for the amateur (less ‘costly’). This article analyzes whether a further distinction between the professional and the amateur should influence the way courts set negligence standards: the professional is more likely to invest in acquiring information concerning negligence standards, and the professional is hence more likely than the amateur to be influenced by the standards. This issue is analyzed for the case where the professional is the injurer and the amateur is the victim. The amateur is assumed not to acquire any information concerning standards, and the behavior of the amateur is taken as exogenously fixed. Under this assumption, the negligence standard applied to the professional may be either higher or lower than first best, depending on whether care levels by the injurer and the victim are substitutes or complements and on whether, in the absence of information, the amateur over- or under-estimates the standard applied to him or her.

Commentators express concern that when auditors investigate for but fail to detect fraud, jurors might effectively penalize the auditors for having investigated for the fraud (AICPA, 2004; Coffee, 2004; Golden, Skalak, & Clayton, 2006). Consistent with these concerns, Reffett (2010) finds that, in a between-participants setting, evaluators in cases of undetected fraud are more likely to hold auditors liable for damages when the auditors identified the perpetrated fraud as a fraud risk and then investigated for the fraud, relative to when the auditors did neither. What remains unclear, however, is the extent to which identifying versus investigating fraud risks increases evaluators’ between-participants assessments of auditor liability. That is, when auditors investigate for, but fail to detect fraud, is the increase in evaluators’ liability assessments due to the fact that the auditors identified (i.e., were aware of) the fraud risk but did not detect the fraud, or that the auditors unsuccessfully investigated for the fraud (or both)? This study addresses these questions by reporting evidence that both identifying and investigating fraud risks can each, in isolation, increase evaluators’ perceptions of auditor negligence. The processes by which identifying and investigating fraud risks increase evaluators’ negligence verdicts, however, appear to differ.

Can one describe the ‘natural’ process of pregnancy as ‘harm’, even when negligently brought about? What does that harm consist of? Offering a contextual analysis of the English judiciary's characterisation of wrongful pregnancy, this paper demonstrates from a feminist perspective that the current construction of pregnancy as a ‘personal injury’ is deeply problematic. Forwarding an alternative account, this paper argues for law to embrace a richer notion of autonomy that will better resonate with women's diverse experiences of reproduction, and articulate the importance of autonomy in the reproductive domain: notably, women gaining control over their moral, relational and social lives.

Much of the discussion surrounding the antivaccine movement focuses on the decision of parents to not vaccinate their children and the resulting danger posed to others. However, the primary risk is borne by the child left unvaccinated. Although living in a developed country with high vaccination rates provides a certain amount of protection through population immunity, the unvaccinated child is still exposed to a considerably greater risk of preventable diseases than one who is vaccinated. I explore the tension between parental choice and the child’s right to be free of preventable diseases. The chapter’s goal is twofold: to advocate for moving from a dyadic framework – considering the interests of the parents against those of the state – to a triadic one, in which the interests of the child are given as much weight as those of the parent and the state; and to discuss which protections are available, and how they can be improved. Specific legal tools available to protect that child are examined, including tort liability of the parents to the child, whether and to what degree criminal law has a role, under what circumstances parental choice should be overridden, and the role of school immunization requirements in protecting the individual child.

Public reports of provider-specific patient outcomes aim to help consumers select suppliers of medical services. Yet, in an environment of rapidly changing medical technology and increasingly heterogeneous patient populations, and because they necessarily reflect the experience of other patients who received care in the past, such reports may be of limited value in helping patients forecast the probability of an adverse outcome for each provider they are considering. I propose that providers underwrite insurance policies that promptly pay patients a predetermined sum after an adverse outcome. Patients can use such outcome warranties to infer quality differences among providers easily and reliably. In addition, outcome warranties efficiently reward both providers and patients for reducing the risk of adverse outcomes and thereby improve the safety and affordability of health care. As such, outcome warranties help advance four important goals of health care management: reduction of financial risk, recruitment and retention of physicians, remediation of adverse outcomes, and raising the provider's reputation.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the current limitations in compensating the civilian victims of armed conflicts and to examine the possibility of extending this practice.

Methodology/approach – The first half of the chapter employs legal and political analysis of the current framework of international law and the practice of the United States. The latter half of the chapter examines the literature on theory of liability in economics and philosophy.

Findings – The framework of international law, which does not require compensation for the victims of lawful attacks, is increasingly at odds with the current trend in which military force is used by a powerful state against a much weaker state on the grounds that the local population would benefit from the operation. The system developed by the United States is the most extensive and can form a model for other states and international institutions. Keating's analysis of enterprise liability can be applied to compensation of victims in military operations that are deemed to be beneficial to the population. Economic analysis, on contrary, suggests that compensation of civilian victims has minimal effect on the level of risks.

Originality/value – This chapter makes a unique contribution by applying theory of liability to a situation that widely diverges from the context in which the theory has developed. It critically examines the current practice and proposes a morally preferable and economically sustainable alternative model.

According to national surveys, every year approximately 20% of school-age students report bullying victimization. The risk of victimization is even higher for students with disabilities, particularly those whose disabilities are characterized by social–emotional or behavioral traits. To address public concern over bullying, states passed anti-bullying laws and schools implemented bullying prevention programs, with little effect on the frequency of bullying. Consequently, parents of students with disabilities increasingly filed lawsuits to address the harm caused by bullying. Previous research established an increasing trajectory for the frequency of these lawsuits, although the outcomes remained largely favorable to the district defendants. To determine whether these trends continue, this study examined bullying-related court decisions over a 2.5 year period to determine the frequency of cases and claim basis rulings, the representation of disability categories among student plaintiffs, and the outcomes distribution for the claim rulings and cases. The findings noted a continued increasing trajectory for the frequency of cases with an overrepresentation of plaintiffs with ADHD, mental health diagnoses, and autism. Most commonly cited legal bases were Section 504/ADA and negligence, with the overall outcomes distribution more parent plaintiff-favorable than the previous research. To prevent potential liability, educators should strengthen efforts to both comply with reporting and investigation requirements as well as establishing a school culture that accepts differences among students.

This chapter presents a case which illustrates how the external management consultant may function as an organizational anthropologist and provide insights and alternative strategies for human resource professionals and leadership faced with high toxicity levels. The long-term failure to timely detect toxins and intervene in a destructive conflict results in the spread of dysfunctional behavior in the case company, pointing to leadership negligence and malpractice. The deeply entrenched “no emotions allowed” culture evokes massive turnover and plunging motivation and productivity. The case concludes with specific recommendations for avoiding or repairing a toxic workplace culture.

This paper is dedicated to the topic of the emerging challenges of traditional criminal law as posed by the development of modern technology. In certain parts of the world, the automotive industry has already implemented a new generation of autonomous self-driving vehicles. Moreover, there have been incidents where such vehicles have been involved in traffic accidents with deadly consequences. The use of autonomous intelligence is also emerging in other important sectors, such as in medicine and the military.

The issue of the legal liability of autonomous machines has been the subject of numerous philosophical debates and approached from the perspective of tort law. The question of criminal liability, however, has still not been debated more comprehensively. In this text, I will analyze the scope and limits of criminal liability of humans for criminal offenses “committed” by autonomous systems. Firstly, I will describe potential crimes of AI in context of intent and negligence. Secondly, I will propose the new concept of (shared) criminal liability, the concept I will name the Division of Labor theory.