*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of The Tort Law Review (Volume 28 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
Online Intermediaries and Defamation \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Safe Harbours\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in Australia and New Zealand: Content Hosts, Facebook Comments and Contretemps<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Alex Latu<\/p>\n High-profile defamation proceedings in Australia (Voller<\/em>) and New Zealand (Wishart<\/em>) have sought to hold Facebook Page operators liable for third parties\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 comments. Relevant to this issue are relatively under-scrutinised, legislative \u00e2\u20ac\u0153safe harbours\u00e2\u20ac\u009d from liability available to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153content hosts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and capable of covering a wide range of online intermediaries. Given appellate decisions in both proceedings, this article considers each safe harbour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s potential effects on defamation liability arising from publication (subject to innocent dissemination), to assess their prospective impact. It is argued that the combined effect in each jurisdiction risks treating online intermediaries too monolithically and fails to set out a clear path to addressing difficulties with the traditional common law approach to publication coupled with innocent dissemination. The pending judgment of the High Court in Voller as well as defamation law reform processes (specifically the Stage 2 review of Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Model Defamation Provisions) present opportunities to change this balance.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n One More Chance for Loss of Chance? Re-examining Loss of Chance through the Lens of Actionable Damage<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Louis Lau Yi Hang<\/p>\n The loss of chance doctrine has proven to be a conundrum within the field of negligence. While some view it as an exception to causation, others believe that a more appropriate inquiry turns on the question of actionable damage. This article argues that adopting the former approach unduly distorts traditional understanding of causation principles and its exceptions. Rather, the latter approach is preferred, and is supported by judicial precedents across various common law jurisdictions. Specifically, it is argued that the basis of actionable damage lies in the protection of personal interests, and policy reasons can be canvassed to support its recognition. On this view, not only are there cogent policy reasons supporting the recognition of loss of chance as a new head of damage to protect the interests of patients, such a framework also prevents the employment of policy reasons from being criticised as akin to an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unruly horse\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Reel Harm: Negligence Liability for Psychiatric Harm Sustained by Reality Television Contestants<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Tina Popa and James Gilchrist Stewart<\/p>\n The advent of reality television programs, such as cooking competitions, matchmaking, and adventure programs, has seen an increase in adverse effects on reality television contestants\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 mental health, including psychiatric conditions, bullying, online trolling, and suicides in extreme cases. This article shines a spotlight on this emerging legal issue by exploring the possible avenues for reality television contestants to claim compensation for mental harm. The article discusses Prince v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd <\/em>and Green v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd<\/em>, and the impact these decisions are likely to have. Through a Victorian lens, the authors explore compensation avenues under statutory schemes, common law claims, breach of statutory duty and contractual issues. The authors contend that no-fault statutory compensation schemes (where contestants are characterised as workers) are the most appropriate avenue for compensation, to ensure that psychologically fragile contestants are spared protracted litigation proceedings.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Developing a Contextual-pluralist Model of Vicarious Liability<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c James Brown<\/p>\n This article presents a somewhat novel way of looking at vicarious liability by developing a model that is both sensitive to context and factual nuance, and understanding of the fact that none of the purported theoretical justifications for the doctrine are entirely satisfactory on their own. It is suggested that a pluralistic balancing approach to the relevant theories could be predicated on the somewhat recent emergence of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fair, just and reasonable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d test in this area of law. From a normative standpoint, this is likely to lead to a more meaningful, adaptable and transparent law on employer liability. The article also highlights that the adoption of a contextual-pluralist model may lead to a more consistent and in-depth judicial application of the various rationales for vicarious liability. In so doing, it claims that judges should adopt a so-called \u00e2\u20ac\u0153thick approach\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to the use of theory.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Tort L Rev Vol 28 No 2 Contents<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or here: New Westlaw AU\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Tort L Rev Vol 28 No 2 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n