Personal Injury Schedules: Calculating Damages covers in one single volume all that the PI practitioner needs in order to calculate damages in a personal injury case. It provides a guide to the assessment of damages and presentation of schedules. The emphasis remains on the practical application of the rules and principles involved, covering a variety of claims ranging from the small to the catastrophic. Defendants are also catered for, with a substantial chapter on Counter-Schedules. The book contains comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the relevant principles and case law in a practical handbook style with valuable advice on presentation and strategy, complimented by a raft of precedents. Its key strengths are its clear and structured presentation and calculation of difficult items of loss with checklists, bullet points and tables offering immediate solutions for the busy practitioner, who needs accurate information on a daily basis in the courtroom or the office. This new edition is fully updated to take account of the following developments resulting from case law since the last edition: Fatal Accident Act multipliers: Knauer v MOJ [2016] UKSC 9; Pre-existing conditions: Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffordshire [2015] EWCA Civ 1119; Residual earnings discount factors: Billett v MOD[2015] EWCA Civ 773; Review of the highest court award ever made: Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NSH Trust [2015] EWHC 923 (QB); Developments in the approach to interim payment applications: Smith v Bailey [2014] EWHC 2569 (QB); Recoverability of credit hire claims: Brent v Highways & Utilities Construction & others [2011] EWCA Civ 1384; Opuku v Tintas [2013] EWCA Civ 1299; Zurich Insurance v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357; Sobrany v UAB Transtira [2016] EWCA Civ 28; Fatal accidents and incompatibility with the ECHR: Swift v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWCA Civ 193; Periodical payment orders: RH v University Hospitals Bristol Foundation Trust [2013] EWHC 299 (QB); Wallace v Follett [2013] EWCA Civ 146; Striking out dishonest claims: Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26; Assessment of multipliers when not constrained by the Damages Act 1996: Simon v Helmot [2012] UKPC 5; Assessment of life expectancy: Whiten v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2066 (QB).

Little attention has been paid to the development of Australian private law throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Using the law of tort as an example, Mark Lunney argues that Australian contributions to common law development need to be viewed in the context of the British race patriotism that characterised the intellectual and cultural milieu of Australian legal practitioners. Using not only primary legal materials but also newspapers and other secondary sources, he traces Australian developments to what Australian lawyers viewed as British common law. The interaction between formal legal doctrine and the wider Australian contexts in which that doctrine applied provided considerable opportunities for nuanced innovation in both the legal rules themselves and in their application. This book will be of interest to both lawyers and historians keen to see how notions of Australian identity have contributed to the development of an Australian law.

Worker Injury Third Party Cases: Recognizing and Proving Liability is a practical resource that helps lawyers and others identify viable third party theories of liability in worker injury cases. It helps attorneys make what is perhaps their most important economic decision - knowing when to accept and when to reject a new case. This book provides information to help both plaintiff and defense attorneys recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their case. It aims to reinforce the notion that litigation is truly a search for truth and justice. Part I provides an understanding of what should be done to implement the overall job site safety program. Parts II and III aid in identifying and preparing injury cases related to construction and premise cases Part IV should be helpful in products cases. Part V includes chapters of general interest. Many chapters include lists of questions which can be used in deposition or cross examination of defendants and experts. It serves as a practical resource for all parties in a wide variety of worker injury cases.

Accessory liability in the private law is of great importance. Claimants often bring claims against third parties who participate in wrongs. For example, the 'direct wrongdoer' may be insolvent, so a claimant might prefer a remedy against an accessory in order to obtain satisfactory redress. However, the law in this area has not received the attention it deserves. The criminal law recognises that any person who 'aids, abets, counsels or procures' any offence can be punished as an accessory, but the private law is more fragmented. One reason for this is a tendency to compartmentalise the law of obligations into discrete subjects, such as contract, trusts, tort and intellectual property. This book suggests that by looking across such boundaries in the private law, the nature and principles of accessory liability can be better understood and doctrinal confusion regarding the elements of liability, defences and remedies resolved. Winner of the Joint Second SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship 2015.

This book is the first in a series of essay collections on defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability arising in tort. The essays range from those adopting a primarily doctrinal approach to others that examine the law from a more theoretical or historical perspective. Some essays focus on individual defences, while some are concerned with the links between defences, or with how defences relate to the structure of tort law as a whole. A number of the essays also draw upon concepts and literature that have been developed mainly in relation to the criminal law, and consider their application to tort law. The essays make several original contributions to this complex, important but neglected field of academic enquiry.

The principal objective of this book is simple: to provide a timely and effective means of navigating the current maze of case law on causation, in order that the solutions to causal problems might more easily be reached and the law relating to them more easily understood. The need for this has been increasingly evident in recent judgments dealing with causal issues: in particular, it seems to be ever harder to distinguish between the different 'categories' of causation and, consequently, to identify the legal test to be applied on any given set of facts. Causation in Negligence will make such identification easier, both by clarifying the parameters of each category and mapping the current key cases accordingly, and by providing one basic means of analysis which will make the resolution of even the thorniest of causal issues a straightforward process. The causal inquiry in negligence seems to have become a highly complicated and confused area of the law. As this book demonstrates, this is unnecessary and easily remedied.

The U.S. Army s Command and General Staff School offers its Advanced Operations Course (AOC) for junior field-grade officers using both traditional resident instruction and a model referred to as blended distributed learning (BDL). This report assesses the effectiveness of AOC-BDL based on student and graduate surveys and identifies best practices for BDL from empirical research and case studies.

It is said that a nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land. This definition is typically unhelpful. While a nuisance must fit this account, it is plain that not all such interferences are legal nuisances. Thus, analysis of this area of the law begins with a definition far too broad for its subject matter, forcing the analyst to find more or less arbitrary ways of cutting back on potential liability. Tort law is plagued by this kind of approach. In the law of nuisance, today's preferred method of cutting back is to employ the notion of reasonableness. No one seems to know quite what 'reasonableness' means in this context, however. This is because, in fact, it does not mean anything. The notion is no more than the immediately recognisable symptom of our inadequate comprehension of the law. This book expounds a new understanding of the law of nuisance, an understanding that presents the law in a coherent and systematic fashion. It advances a single, central suggestion: that the law of nuisance is the method that the common law utilises for prioritising property rights so that conflicts between uses of property can be resolved.

Over the last two decades public law liability for breach of European Union law has been subject to remarkable developments. This book examines the convergence between its two constituent systems: the damages liability of the EU and that of its Member States for failing to comply with EU rules. Member State liability, based as it is on the Francovich case (1991) and Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame (1996) judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is well established. But it is yet to be closely scrutinised by reference to the detailed rules on the liability of the European Union. The focus of the book is on the two key legal criteria that are common to both systems, namely the grant of rights to individuals by EU law and the notion of sufficiently serious breach of such rights. The analysis concentrates on developments in the case law of the ECJ and the General Court since the Bergaderm judgment (2000), which consolidated the convergence of the two liability systems that was first indicated in Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame. These two criteria are set side by side to evaluate the extent, in real terms, of the convergence of Member State and EU institutional damages liability, and to determine the extent to which one has influenced the other. This book shows that although full convergence between the two liability systems is not likely, each stream of case law should look to the other more actively as this important element of EU remedial law develops. Convergence in EU law public liability is supported by developments in adjacent areas, most notably European tort law and European administrative law. This study also illustrates how convergence in the EU liability systems to date has had spill-over effects into national public liability law.

This book defines and explains the operation of the defence of change of position in Anglo-Australian law. It is a widely accepted view that the defence is a modern development, the first express recognition of which can be traced in England to the seminal decision of the House of Lords in Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd. Commentators have accordingly tended to focus on post-Lipkin case law in discussing the defence and its many disputed features. This work takes a different stance, arguing that the defence is best understood by placing it within its broader historical and legal context. It explains that the foundations of the defence can be found in the related doctrines of estoppel by representation, the agent's defence of payment over and the law of rescission. The analysis applies crucial insights from those areas, together with the change of position authorities and broader considerations of policy and principle, to develop a rigorous model of the change of position defence. The work not only provides a clear and exhaustive examination of the defence, but demonstrates that, properly understood, the defence operates in a rational and justifiable manner within its broader private law context. In so doing, its analysis meets the oft-expressed concern than the defence may operate in an unprincipled way or by reference to 'that vague jurisprudence which is sometimes attractively styled "justice as between man and man"'.

This new work adds to the theoretical understanding and discussion of possible solutions to various conceptual and practical problems that arise within the field of medical negligence - an area whose legal treatment is perceived, both in England and Germany, as containing a number of special difficulties and shortcomings. In addition it seeks to make a contribution to the developing field of comparative law, by employing a detailed and closely focused analytical approach in a tightly defined subject area. These twin aims serve to reveal the similarities and differences between two legal cultures in a particularly clear and striking way. The book offers an analysis which is neutral as between the English and German approaches. The issues are dealt with thematically so far as possible, so that the respective treatments in each country of a given matter, eg the standard of care owed by medical practitioners, are discussed side-by-side. The book thus avoids the 'country-report' style, whereby the systems are presented largely separately from each other. What is of particular interest is how, notwithstanding their common starting point in terms of the application of the fault-principle under private law, the detailed rules in the two countries differ markedly. This is true both in the divergent way that claims are structured and argued, and also quite often as regards their substantive outcome. It will be of interest to comparative lawyers, tort and medical lawyers, and practising lawyers working in these areas.

Presents the most comprehensive description to date of the longest-running mass tort litigation in U.S. history. Asbestos litigation is the longest-running mass tort litigation in U.S. history. Through 2002, approximately 730,000 individuals have brought claims against some 8,400 business entities, and defendants and insurers have spent a total of USD70 billion on litigation. Building on previous RAND briefings, the authors report on what happened to those who have claimed injury from asbestos, what happened to the defendants in those cases, and how lawyers and judges have managed the cases.

To find more information about Rowman and Littlefield titles, please visit www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance. This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

This book aims to provide a detailed analysis and overview of the duty of care enquiry, drawing on both academic analyses and judicial experience in leading common law systems. A new structure through which duty problems can be analysed is also proposed. It is hoped that the book provides some fresh insights and clarity of the concept to the reader.

This book addresses some of the most difficult and important debates over injury and law now taking place in societies around the world. The essays tackle the inescapable experience of injury and its implications for social inequality in different cultural settings. Topics include the tension between physical and reputational injuries, the construction of human injuries versus injuries to non-human life, virtual injuries, the normalization and infliction of injuries on vulnerable victims, the question of reparations for slavery, and the paradoxical degradation of victims through legal actions meant to compensate them for their disabilities. Authors include social theorists, social scientists and legal scholars, and the subject matter extends to the Middle East and Asia, as well as North America.

This book examines claims in negligence arising from illegal conduct of the claimant. An array of public policy and other grounds have been advanced for resolving these claims, resulting in an area that is characterised by confusing and contradictory case law. The book analyses the various explanations put forward as the basis for illegality doctrine within a framework of corrective justice theory. Illegality law poses particular challenges for the corrective justice explanation of negligence law, as many illegality tests are based on public policy considerations external to the relationship of the parties. The book argues that the only circumstance where illegality doctrine should be applied to deny a claim is where this is necessary to preserve the coherence of the legal system. It develops the work of Ernest Weinribian corrective justice theorists to explain how the principle of legal coherence fits within the framework of corrective justice theory, and why legal coherence is the only valid conceptual basis for a doctrine of illegality. It also contains a detailed study on the scope of the coherence rationale and the principles that will determine its application.

This Casebook deals with the horizontal effects of EU law, which is to say its effects on relationships between individuals. To a large extent, these effects have been created by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the basis of the European Treaties. The main focus of the Casebook is on the developments relating to primary EU law and their influence on national private law. It studies instances where EU primary law has already directly or indirectly influenced the case law in the Member States, or where it is expected to do so soon. Compared to the well-known impact of EU directives on private law, these developments concerning primary EU law are hardly noted by private lawyers and perhaps not sufficiently explained by scholars of EU law. Therefore the book makes an important contribution to scholarship and education. This book highlights developments in the areas of competition law, fundamental freedoms, non-discrimination, general principles of EU law, ex officio application of provisions of EU law and implementation of directives, including harmonious interpretation and Francovich liability. In its analysis of the ways in which EU law interacts with private law, the book will be an invaluable resource to students, practitioners and academics of EU private law.

Tort Law Concepts and Applications, 2e provides the most comprehensive coverage of substantive American tort law available. This edition features two chapters devoted to intentional torts, two chapters devoted to negligence, and references to the latest cases and statutes. To help students develop in-demand paralegal skills, there are extensive end-of-chapter exercises, online video cases, and an entire chapter devoted to tort practice and applications.

In the five decades after the Civil War, the United States witnessed a profusion of legal institutions designed to cope with the nation's exceptionally acute industrial accident crisis. Jurists elaborated the common law of torts. Workingmen's organizations founded a widespread system of cooperative insurance. Leading employers instituted welfare-capitalist accident relief funds. And social reformers advocated compulsory insurance such as workmen's compensation.

John Fabian Witt argues that experiments in accident law at the turn of the twentieth century arose out of competing views of the loose network of ideas and institutions that historians call the ideology of free labor. These experiments a century ago shaped twentieth- and twenty-first-century American accident law; they laid the foundations of the American administrative state; and they occasioned a still hotly contested legal transformation from the principles of free labor to the categories of insurance and risk. In this eclectic moment at the beginnings of the modern state, Witt describes American accident law as a contingent set of institutions that might plausibly have developed along a number of historical paths. In turn, he suggests, the making of American accident law is the story of the equally contingent remaking of our accidental republic.