Teaser by Just Law

There is one last hurdle before concluding a negligence claim. Defences, ranging from volenti to intoxication, are available to the defendant if they are able to identify wrong-doing on the plaintiff's behalf. However, the crucial question is, when does a defence operate to completely negate the defendant's liabiity and when does it provide only a partial reduction in damages? We bring this question up to Giacomo Rotolo-Ross and Maxine Jeric, for a succinct discussion along with some new, funky music. *Note: keep an eye out on the subtleties between defences to negligence and defences to intentional torts. Although similar, they are not the same thing!

Factual causation and scope of liability, more commonly referred to as causation and remoteness, form the recipe of the third step of the negligence calculus. The Civil Liability Act prescribes a two-step approach for determining whether the damage should be deemed too remote from the original tort. But is it sufficient, logical, easy to work with? On this episode we hear it from Professor Barbara McDonald, the guru in this area. Tune in for some of her signature examples, and her explanation behind the most recent attempts to improve CLA.

There you have it, the first major problem question assignment. You have read the facts maybe ten times and you have no idea where to start. Negligence here and there. Intoxication? Should you use CLA? No fear, we are here to help you out! To launch our mini special episode series, we have invited three guest curators - Lou Lemm, Peter Dougherty, Justin Handisurya - to give a useful summary of how to tackle your first major assignment. Also, we will provide you with some tips to recharge and maintain a good balance when completing the assignment, and of course a guide of all services available if you are feeling a bit burned out.

Negligence is, without doubt, the most prominent topic in the law of torts. It has such a big name...that we decided to do five episodes on it! In this introductory episode and the first of the series, we walk you through the basics of establishing a duty of care. We are cordially joined by Jessica Ottavi in a conversation with Dr Belinda Reeve in what is our longest discussion so far. Hear about Dr Reeve's commentary on the law in this area, and of course, her personal case favourites.

Your very first introductory episode to defences in torts is here! Quite unlikely (and gruesome?), the case law in this area revolves around glass shards being thrown in a stand-off and Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions. From necessity to consent, we traverse this difficult landscape with Nam Kiet Nguyen and Patrick Hendy. *Note: pay attention, as the part about Mike Tyson is highly relevant!

Privacy matters. However, there is, as yet, no general tort of invasion of privacy in Australian law. Will a Bill of Rights help? How do countries such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom address this issue? We explore these perspectives with Tom Lyons and Miriam Asar, in a comparative study of Australia's stance on privacy law and why it should look ahead.

Private nuisance is complicated. As a remedy for the interference with the use, occupation and enjoyment of land, it complements the action for trespass. There are different liabilities: should the owner be held liable for a loud party hosted by their tenants? Is the occupier accountable for the nuisance created by a trespasser? Can you complain of 526 golf balls when living next to a golf resort? In this episode, we team up with Alan Zheng and Lihini de Silva to tackle these questions.