Negligence Law in Two Hours
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лют 2020
- This video, the fifth in the "Law in two hours" series, covers the content of an undergraduate negligence law unit - including both the common law authorities and the statutory authorities for Queensland, which can easily be converted into the statutes for the other Australian states.
And it does all this in two hours!
If you're not from Australia, that's fine too. These principles will work pretty much anywhere in the common law world. Enjoy!
Every single case mentioned in this video now has its own two-minute casenote. You can see the playlist here:
• Two Minute Negligence ...
12 lectures at 3 hours a lecture and I know nothing. Two hours with Dr Marinac and I get it! You are amazing!
You really are a life saver. I couldn't have understood negligence better and in a straight forward manner. God Bless!
Dr Marinac, you are a legend. Thanks for doing this.
My pleasure!
Dear Dr Marinac, you are a legend. Thank you for your great work. You are an amazing teacher I had ever met.
That flow chart at the end of the lecture absolutely helps in understanding. You are a wonderful teacher.Thank you.
Thank you so very much!
These 2 hour videos are very helpful. I am currently studying negligence. I found this video on negligence a great self-check tool enabling me to check my understanding of the elements of negligence as I work through my term! I found your summaries and flowchart at the end particularly beneficial. Greatly appreciated, Doctor!
Dear Dr Anthony Marinac,
Many thanks for all of your videos. I really appreciate what you're doing for us. Those videos are so great, as you are giving a crystal clear explanation, especially the "Preparing for Law School in two hours". God bless you! I am free of panic now and I feel so positive! By watching this video I know exactly what I need to do and how to preparing myself. Many Thanks!!!
Thanks so much, Rebecca!
Thank you Dr Marinac such a helpful revision tool. Your passion for the law and education is clear.
This was the most useful video I have ever come across. Thank you sir.
You are very welcome :)
I really really like your channel. The videos are super helpful and outstandingly relevant to my course even though I don’t even study in Australia haha.. Thanks for uploading this video, appreciate it
My pleasure mate - very glad to know these are helpful beyond Australia. All the best with your studies!
Your videos have constantly been of great help to me. Thank you Doctor🙏
I'm so glad - thank you Patience!
You r far better than any lecturer I have had. Thank u 👍✋
Your lectures are really great. Just found about it and I watch it every time before reading. Thank you so much 😊😊😊
Love your videos. Thank you so much for sharing. You explain things so well.
You're most welcome Kaz! 😊
Thank you..your pace is amazing!
Thank you so much!
Thank you. Love your lectures!
Thanks so much, Melanie. Good luck with your studies!
The Hon Dr Marinac AM QC legend
LOL not sure I could live up to all that ;-) But thank you!
Excellent lesson, thank you.
Hi Anthony, thank you for the awesome videos! Im currently studying law at bond uni :) I was wondering, is the scope of duty different to the proximity test? If so, how would you deal with the issue of the scope?
Hi Jun, Scope of Duty goes a bit beyond just proximity. Proximity is part of it, but it also includes other stuff such as illegality. Again though, scope of duty really doesn't seem to develop the law beyond Perre v Apand, it just translates it into statutory form
Great revision video - thank you.
My pleasure!
Thanks Anthony appreciate it a lot
thank you so much for this info its amazingly detailed post
itive
Thank you for your videos! They are very helpful! I wanted to ask in a case of negligence where a duty is difficult to establish e.g both the claimant and the defendant were involved in a crime and the defendant is injured by the claimant is there no standard of duty there because the claimant could foresee that harm may occur? It’s also difficult to establish duty due to a lack of standard of care, but how could you argue that there is a duty/standard of care? Courts usually can but do not establish a duty in these cases. I found an essay question that requires both arguments. Any suggestions?
Thanks for the video. I’m sure if will help a lot with my exam.
I hope your exam went terrifically, Tony :)
You have people in “custody” that means under your custodial care!! Your duty is ensure nothing happens such as bodily harm once in your custody!! That is intentional!
I really am grateful 😇
You're very welcome!
Best intro soundtrack so far!
Thanks mate :)
Thank you 🙏🏻
You're very welcome!
another great video thank you. Is the flow chart available anywhere for printing? need that stuck on my wall :)
Quite apart from the excellent information provided, this is worth watching just for the phrase 'everything from dehydration to drop bears' 😂
Remember folks, look up and live!
Hi Anthony thanks for making this video. Is there much difference between a letter of apology and a letter of regret or are they just the same thing with a different name?
Hi! They are effectively the same thing in terms of negligence. Be careful though, if you're looking at a defamation case, defamation treats apologies entirely differently.
For example, I spend so much time in SA, so much time in Qld and so much attention from WA, my gratitude is with WA.
Hard to get into WA just at the moment - but I think their border policy has been successful overall. Still, people suffer, sadly, either way.
Hi Anthony, thank you so much for your videos and the effort you put in to teaching students. If you're able to help me, I have a question about when to use the 'but for' test or the material contribution test in a problem question. If the scenario is a situation without multiple possible contributions to the the harm, should I just go straight to the material contribution test? In exams, I have a tendency to go into too much detail with my answers (at the expense of finishing the answer). I'm trying to save myself the hassle of wasting time in exams but I just can't seem to pinpoint EXACTLY when to use the 'but for' test or the material contribution test. :( Thank you
Hey thanks so much for your kind words! The "but for" test is a good starting point but it has some really substantial inherent limitations. It only tells us really about logic, not about liability. If it were me I would very briefly identify the various "but for" contributors but then immediately focus on those with the greatest materiality
Thank you for both this great video and venturing into this platform/medium to provide straight forward explanations of the legal topics or cases. As a new law student I really appreciate your approach and delivery as it helps to explain the topic in a way that just makes sense. I would definitely recommend this channel to anyone studying Law in Qld or Aust.
Thanks so much Andrew, really appreciate your kind words :)
Great lecture. Thankyou sir. Please I am studying law in UK and will eventually would like to practice in Australia. Would the things i learn from your lecture apply to my studies in UK ?
Hi, there will be a GREAT deal of similarity, but you should be very careful before relying on any Australian cases as authorities. All the concepts in these videos will be helpful to you; the authorities, not so much.
Try not to help someone in Queens land, lol. Great videos!
Queenslanders are awesome! Glad you like the videos :)
Hahah I am from Uganda and we know that gravity means seriousness. A grave situation. hehehe. Amazing video.
Most grave indeed :-) I'm glad the video was helpful!
It is a different temperature on the inside of the coffee shop for example to those sitting on the outer tables, the visibility doesn't have anything with the temperature.
True, although I know some people who say they see things more clearly after a coffee lol
Dear Professor
This gonna help in my exam :D
I sure hope it did! :)
I was enjoying this until I chuckled and almost choked on my drink at the drop bear reference. Reasonable foreseeability! :P
Drop bear safety is paramount. Look up and live!
Thank GOD for your videos ty ty ty ty ty love ya guts matexxx
You're awesome, that is the most Aussie comment I have ever had on this channel :) I'm glad my stuff helps!
If you're studying negligence, be aware I have a playlist with over 50 two-minute casenotes on every case cited in that lecture :)
Gosh, I am terribly sad to hear that. I can't even begin to imagine the devastation.
I'm sure you will understand that I am always very careful on this channel not to end up providing people with individual legal advice. What I will say is that inquests do sometimes provide the basis for a case in tort, but medical negligence cases are very complicated, and they are not an area that I specialise or practice in. In this case, if the cause of death was related to (for instance) respiratory arrest following an over-ingestion of opioids, then one possibility MIGHT be medical negligence, if the doctor acted in a way that other doctors would not regard as proper practice. But there are a lot of questions that would need answering first.
It would be worth your while going in to speak with a personal injury firm about your prospects of a claim - but that should be a confidential discussion out of respect for you and for your late son, not a discussion on UA-cam.
I really do wish you all the very best.
@@AnthsLawSchool am so sorry , thank you I do understand completely
Have you written any book?
😅
I’m literally listening to your videos every day and night
I have written a book, with some co-authors, called "Learning Law". It's published by Cambridge University Press :)
Tq very much
I concur. It’s Ridiculous!
I know right!
Major negligence!!! Gross misconduct and incompetence
Hey plz let me know is this lecture video is based on uk llb syllabus ?
Australian, I'm afraid. The concepts are very similar to the UK, but I'm not sure about the similarities of the legislation
Just after the 1:51:00 mark I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. My understanding is that you say an unborn child cannot sue their mother until they are actually born. The idea of an unborn child suing their mother (or the unborn child's attorney suing the child's mother on their behalf haha) seems absurd so I feel I must be missing something. Thanks and I really appreciate these videos.
Hi Riles, I've now actually done a two minute casenote on that case, which might help. The infant is suing their mother, but in reality the infant was suing the mother's third party insurer. So if the liability was established, it wouldn't be met by the mother, but rather by her insurer. If the liability was to be met by the mother than, as you say, the action would make no sense. Hope that clarifies!
White chess vs black chess, ignorance vs negligence.
Yes, the line between the two can be hard to decipher
The visibility, I say something and I see Clearly is told to me, glass, mirror.
Unfortunately, though, sometimes both glass and words can distort what we perceive.
For example someone in fear of a broken heart may say all this rubbish about the other person then a random attack on the other person occurs which would only hurt the person saying rubbish to begin with.
Yes. Many of the great philosophies make the point that violence often hurts the violence-doer.
Thanks for the awesome series. I’m curious about your comment regarding your view that McHale v Watson shouldn’t stand. How then do you expect as 12 year old to be able to meet a judgement?
Hi Sean, thanks for your kind words!
I think it's important to distinguish between liability and remedy here. There are many, many torts cases - not involving kids - where the defendan's capacity to meet the award is pretty questionable, but people sue anyway. My point was that the notion that "twelve year old boys will be twelve year old boys" wouldn't be seen as a defence, in contemporary Australia, in the circumstances of McHale v Watson.
Age - how old am I to tamper ignorant with negligence, the whole risk resulting from obvious surroundings where I can't see.
Age certainly seems to bring wisdom, anyway :)
I ain't for example observing those on the outside it's just my comfort level to distance and glass happens to be there.
And of course you're always entitled to observe :)
It is like nurses going to work to chat with each other while patient s happen to be there verses nurses observing rudely patients.
I tell you what though, since March 2019, I'm in awe of nurses.
A broken heart is a neglectful mother.
And unfortunately, as lawyers often have to explain to clients, a broken heart is one thing that a legal action can never really mend.
Primary code 123 ABC
Neglect the unborn, neglect the child is duty of care.
That is true, althought my own view is that as a male, I can never truly understand the condition of pregnancy, or the decision whether to continue or discontinue a pregnancy, and so I try my best to respect and support women's choices, whichever choice they might make.
Aka ignore bullies vs neglect duties
Ignoring bullies can be a good strategy; neglecting duties, never :)
Then who has laws to be of assistance to my state from interstate has to be accounted for.
Absolutely, most of that happens in constitutional law :)
What if government policy is deliberately designed to cause harm? are they still exempt from a duty of care?
Yes, absolutely. Many government policies quite deliberately "harm" some groups by favouring one group ahead of another. this is part of the political process, and so the answer is to change priorities through the political system rather than the legal system. Hope this helpd!
Surely they don't have license to deliberately, with intent, to do harm or cause death that arguably they are doing with 5G implementation despite protests or implementing a vaccine program that appears to have killed or injured lots of people.
@@johnandrews3675 Hi John, look, I have to say I'm no more than mildly concerned about 5G, and as for the vaccine I just can't wait to get mine because I'm far more worried about the Rona than I am about the vaccine. But you are absolutely entitled to your opinion about those things, and I am not going to try to convince you one way or another.
Let's just assume, for the sake of the argument, that both those things were harmful. There would still be no government duty of care in tort. There might potentially be a case against, say, the vaccine manufacturer or the 5G equipment manufacturer, if you could show they were causing harm, but there would be no liability on the part of the government. All you can do is vote them out next time.
To see a practical example, consider cigarette smoking. There is zero doubt, absolutely zero doubt, that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. There is zero doubt that by allowing cigarettes to continue to be sold, the government is allowing people to die from lung cancer. And yet there has never been any question of government liability for this. You see, the government only sets the rules. Other people or companies then have to actually do the stuff that creates the harm. The government policy is simply too distant from the harm.
I can 100 percent see why someone might want to sue the government over this stuff, but it would not get past the first return date in court. Hope this helps!
@@AnthsLawSchool just tried to respond to you but after writing the response youtube did not provide the opportunity to post it.
@@AnthsLawSchool do you have any evidence that the Corona exists?
Imagine bitumen as an alcohol road and gravel as a sober road.
If I've been drinking alcohol I try to stay off the road altogether :)
RESPONSIBILITY OF CARE.
That's the heart of it :)
lol drop bears!
The scourge of the bush!
The left hand doesn't stop learning hasn't ed. Learner behaviour.
Nobody should ever stop learning :)
Sometimes I leave whites corrections so as I don't accidentally hurt other times I have to repeat my words.
Diplomacy. It's painful but necessary!
You can't harm neighbours white or black.
Certainly we should try not to harm others whenever it can possibly be avoided :)
How do you link negligence surgical error not disclosed on a child…
Surgery intra-operative records evidences s magnitude of the simple surgery couldn’t of just occurred as major drugs administered & intubation & ventilated for 1.5 hours instead of a 22 minute max OT!
Observation changed immediately
Child went to icu
Recovery nurse record depicts exactly the surgery that happened by the FACTS of childs observations
The team never disclosed to parents dispite lungs collapsed
Dispite unwell ++++ needing sepsis pathway, oxygen every day/ night
Long 40 day admission when should of been an overnight at most surgery.
Not a single drs note stating what happened! Instead falsified OT reports making out all went as planned
The scrub nurses record shows the baby dr left alone unsupervised
Shows 1.5 hrs matches the observations in OT, shows only x2 operations not the 3rd they got “phone consent off the other parent” (different parent who signed consent due to likely she was a emergency nurse she would of caught onto it).
If it wasn’t for the head of department taking over telling parents off record in clinic what happened they wouldn’t of known the extent & or what happened or what early intervention needed!
To not disclose & have whole hospital help cover it up especially when its a baby = the liability attempting to avoid must be significant!
The team left nothing in writing admissions to anything! Instead made out it never happened & made out ANAESTHESIC DR INCLUDING the surgery went fine minimal drugs administered only 22 minutes surgery etc
You look at the intraop records = FALSIFIED
Observations in OT = 1.5 hrs
Intubation & intubation drugs
Respiratory distress occured
Heavy pain opioid boluses & infusions! Large almost adult doses!
Child developed a fever
Came out to recovery needed +++ airway support & pain relief = ICU admission & a 40 day admission instead of x1 day.
Severe sleep apnea in sleep developed SEVERE STRIDOR WOB respiratory distress in sleep ever since
All documented
Yet nothing actually links error or WRITEs error on paper!
Instead discusses steps forward as if this just developed on its own in thin air which it didn’t & is a direct result of the surgery (professor stated)
Yet how do you prove same when not one specialist is writing it? In particular advised a gag order in place amongst them all at this hospital not allowed to disclose it.
Therefore gave the parents enough information to know what happened what cause is & gain records themselves > pursue liability case.
Parents so far unable to gain any videos of surgery error
Emergency surgery post to assess the damage (that record is had) sleep study 3 weeks post SEVERE, pre aOt negliable). The NASOscopes post x3 also not provided under GIPA reviews yet.
How do you link these kinds of cases ? The injury sustained & from their error when every effort is to avoid that link on their part?
Mum has extraordinary amounts of evidence video diaries, recovery videos, all of his life videos in admissions & at clinic prior & now post.
Mum has kept own records written throughout (mums a ED Nurse).
Is a independent review the only way with all files?
/ videos/ diagnostic reports/ child assessed?
Or any other options?
Or are you best to take it straight to the HCCC ?
I'm terribly sorry to hear of such an awful situation. I'm afraid I don't really comment on individual cases here: but it sounds to me like you need to chat to a firm that specialises in medical negligence law. Be well.
Alcohol is my contraception.
I've been told my personality is mine LOL!
deez :)
:)
Nuts? :P
@@AnthsLawSchool Yes boss man
LOL!
The edit of my typing from Ed to we is white players.
Understood :)
The edit from e-d to e-r is white players etc.
Understood :)