The Liability of Providers of Mental Health Services in Negligence

A. Gray
{"title":"The Liability of Providers of Mental Health Services in Negligence","authors":"A. Gray","doi":"10.21153/dlr2015vol20no2art528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna the High Court considered the question of the liability in tort of a mental health provider for the actions of someone whom it had briefly treated. After involuntarily detaining the individual under relevant legislation, the service released the individual into the care of a friend. The person released killed his friend. The High Court allowed an appeal against a finding of the New South Wales Court of Appeal that the mental health service provider had owed, and had breached, legal obligations to the family of the person killed, denying compensation to the family on the basis that the service provider did not owe family members a duty of care. It will be argued that the High Court was wrong to deny that a mental health service provider could owe, or did owe, a duty of care to victims of those to whom the service provider provided services. The Court reached its decision utilising reasoning contrary to that of other cases which have involved questions of the liability of public authorities. The decision travels the well-worn path of denying that a public authority owes a duty of care to the public that it serves by asserting the inconsistency of obligations more apparent than real. The decision shows judicial reluctance to hold public authorities to the legal standards expected of other service providers, a reluctance that must be challenged.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deakin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2015vol20no2art528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna the High Court considered the question of the liability in tort of a mental health provider for the actions of someone whom it had briefly treated. After involuntarily detaining the individual under relevant legislation, the service released the individual into the care of a friend. The person released killed his friend. The High Court allowed an appeal against a finding of the New South Wales Court of Appeal that the mental health service provider had owed, and had breached, legal obligations to the family of the person killed, denying compensation to the family on the basis that the service provider did not owe family members a duty of care. It will be argued that the High Court was wrong to deny that a mental health service provider could owe, or did owe, a duty of care to victims of those to whom the service provider provided services. The Court reached its decision utilising reasoning contrary to that of other cases which have involved questions of the liability of public authorities. The decision travels the well-worn path of denying that a public authority owes a duty of care to the public that it serves by asserting the inconsistency of obligations more apparent than real. The decision shows judicial reluctance to hold public authorities to the legal standards expected of other service providers, a reluctance that must be challenged.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
过失精神卫生服务提供者的责任
在亨特和新英格兰地方卫生区诉麦肯纳案中,高等法院审议了精神保健提供者对其短暂治疗过的人的行为的侵权责任问题。在根据相关法律非自愿拘留此人之后,该服务部门将其释放给一位朋友照顾。被释放的人杀了他的朋友。高等法院允许对新南威尔士州上诉法院的一项裁决提出上诉,该裁决认为,精神健康服务提供者对被杀者的家属负有法律义务,并且违反了法律义务,以服务提供者不负有照顾家庭成员的义务为由,拒绝向家属提供赔偿。有人认为,高等法院否认精神健康服务提供者可能或确实对其提供服务的受害者负有照顾义务是错误的。法院作出裁决所用的推理与涉及公共当局责任问题的其他案件的推理相反。该判决走了一条老生常谈的道路,否认公共当局对它所服务的公众负有注意义务,断言义务的不一致性比实际的更明显。这一决定表明,司法部门不愿让公共当局遵守其他服务提供者所期望的法律标准,这种不愿必须受到挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Recommendations on the Optimal Constitutional Recognition of the First Nations in Australia Damages for Wrongful Fertilisation: Reliance on Policy Considerations ‘The Foundation of Choice of Law: Choice and Equality’ by Sagi Peari Dissonance in Global Financial Law The Peripatetic Nature of EU Corporate Tax Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1