Liability insurance negligence

Although negligence represents the most important legal complication of clinical practice, the exposure of optometrists to malpractice claims remains at a relatively low level, for below that of physicians. Within optometry there is no difference between diagnostic and therapeutic drug use with regard to the risk of malpractice, because professional liability insurance premium costs do not vary on this basis. However, as optometry laws continue to be amended to enable optometrists to serve as primary providers of eye care, this increased clinical responsibility inevitably wiU result in increased litigation. 

Nevertheless, the situation becomes more complex if patients appear to have been infected with viral hepatitis by a dentist or a doctor and claim compensation from the respective personal liability insurance. The decision taken here will be based on the general terms and conditions of the insurance policy itself Likewise, the definition of intent and gross negligence , as stipulated under German law, will have to be clarified once all relevant factors have been reviewed. 

Where the qualified volunteer negligently operates a motor vehicle, eiircraft, boat or other powered mode of conveyance. If the actionable conduct of the quedified volunteer is covered by a policy of liability insurance, whose liability for ordinary negligence shall be limited to the amount of the coverage provided... 

Due to the nature of the common law relating to negligence in the UK it is obvious that an employer is liable to be sued for compensation for any loss or damages suffered by his employees. It is for this reason that employers in the UK are obliged by law to hold compulsory employers liability insurance . This insurance covers the employers for claims from their employees for up to 5 million. Employers will also take out public liability insurance to cover themselves from claims made by third parties who are seeking compensation for a loss, although this is not compulsory. 

Strict liability pools risks by product negligence pools risks by customers. In the case of chemicals, the inefficiencies created by product-specific rather than customer-based insurance vary from product to product. Whereas cancer risks from drinking chlorinated water probably do not vary among users even when care levels differ, cancer risks to infants whose parents spray insecticides on tomato plants probably differ greatly depending on whether the infants are upwind or downwind of the spraying. 

The choice between liabilities also involves value choices about individual responsibility. Advocating no liability or the negligence rule is consistent with the belief that people individually should be responsible for thinking about their choices and risks and whether to insure against them. Advocating strict liability is consistent with different beliefs. 

Strict liability is analogous to a mandated benefit that forces all consumers to buy insurance and knowledge development with the products they buy. Like other mandated benefits, some of the real costs probably falls on consumers as well as workers and shareholders. Additionally, strict liability gives firms, rather than individuals, the power to decide what risks are acceptable. A negligence regime... 

The publisher, author, affiliated individuals and companies disclaim any responsibility for any injury, harm, or illness that may occur to anyone through, or by use of, the information in this book. Every effort was made to insure the accuracy of information in this book, but the publisher and author do not assume, and hereby disclaim, any liability or any loss or damage caused by errors, omissions, misleading information or potential travel problems caused by this guide, even if such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. 

In this respect professional indemnity insurance can cover mainly civil liabilities owing to professional negligence. 

At about the same time, reforms were introduced to provide for compensation of injured workers in other industries. This system, known as Workers Compensation y had similar goals to the FELA but used a fundamentally different approach. It started as a scheme for federal employees in 1908, and expanded rapidly between 1911 and 1921 when it was adopted by all but six states as the primary method of compensating injured employees in both the private and government sectors. Workers compensation is based on the legal principle of strict liability. Employers have to compensate injured employees regardless of who was at fault. Therefore, unlike FELA, courts do not have to decide on the comparative negligence of employer and employee. In effect, workers compensation operates as social insurance scheme. To provide for settlements, employers can either self insure or pay premiums to private or state-run insurance companies. 

---