Faunce Thomas, Townsend Ruth, Reardon Konrad
Australian National University, College of Law and Medical School.
J Law Med. 2010 May;17(5):729-35.
Shortly after the start of the new millennium, the Howard Federal Government in Australia was faced with a so-called "crisis" in medical indemnity insurance which may, in fact, have been due to corporate mismanagement. After a four-person review by a committee chaired by Justice Ipp (who currently serves as a justice on the New South Wales Court of Appeal), it agreed to subsidise the indemnity costs of Australian doctors but the quid pro quo was tort law reform legislation in Australian States. That raft of legislation significantly reduced the capacity of people (particularly patients) who were injured as a result of negligence to receive compensation. The new legislative scheme has been criticised as unjust in extra-curial speeches by senior judges involved in hearing civil litigation in Australia. A resulting hypothesis is that, in cases involving this legislative framework, judges might attempt to make it more just through interpretations enabling the recovery of reasonable damages by injured persons. In this column two such cases involving the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) are discussed. The cases in question (Baker-Morrison v New South Wales [2009] Aust Torts Reports 81-999; [2009] NSWCA 35 and Amaca Pty Ltd v Novek [2009] Aust Torts Reports 82-001; [2009] NSWCA 50), though not involving negligence by medical practitioners, are presented as possible examples of judges enhancing justice in the application of this legislation. The importance is emphasised of judges in medical and other civil liability cases highlighting the hardships and inequities this legislation is found to create for injured people, as a necessary precursor to abolition of this scheme and its eventual replacement with a presumptively more equitable no-fault scheme for compensation, particularly for medically-induced injury in Australia.
新千年伊始不久,澳大利亚霍华德联邦政府就面临所谓的医疗责任保险“危机”,而这实际上可能是由于企业管理不善所致。由伊普法官(现任新南威尔士州上诉法院法官)主持的四人委员会进行审查后,同意补贴澳大利亚医生的保险费用,但条件是澳大利亚各州要进行侵权法改革立法。那一系列立法大幅降低了因疏忽而受伤的人(尤其是患者)获得赔偿的能力。澳大利亚参与审理民事诉讼的高级法官在庭外讲话中批评这一新的立法方案不公正。由此产生的一种假设是,在涉及这一立法框架的案件中,法官可能会试图通过解释使受伤者能够获得合理赔偿,从而使其更加公正。本专栏讨论了两起涉及2002年《新南威尔士州民事责任法》(Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW))的此类案件。所讨论的案件(贝克 - 莫里森诉新南威尔士州案[2009] Aust Torts Reports 81 - 999;[2009] NSWCA 35以及阿马卡私人有限公司诉诺维克案[2009] Aust Torts Reports 82 - 001;[2009] NSWCA 50),虽然不涉及执业医生的疏忽,但被作为法官在适用该立法时增强公正性的可能示例予以呈现。强调了在医疗及其他民事责任案件中,法官指出该立法给受伤者带来的艰难困苦和不公平现象具有重要意义,这是废除该方案并最终以一种据推测更公平的无过错赔偿方案取而代之(尤其是针对澳大利亚的医疗所致伤害)的必要前提。