Hart & McKibbin on "Learning Law"

Associate Professor Caroline Hart and Dr Sarah McKibbin of the USQ School of Law and Justice have co-authored the second edition of Learning Law from Cambridge University Press along with Anthony

Marinac, Rhianna Chisholm, Jennifer Nielsen, Asmi Wood, and Adrian Evans.  Here is the publisher's summary:

"Learning Law is an accessible and engaging introduction to Australian law for students considering a career in the legal profession. This text teaches students how to deal with legislation and cases, focusing on core topics and contextualisation. This second edition has been thoroughly updated and revised, with significant changes including: six new chapters – First Peoples and the law, research, the ethical lawyer, statutory interpretation, lawyers and clients, becoming a lawyer – more coverage of parliaments and courts, new Living Law boxes that showcase the diverse career paths available to law graduates and new Critical Perspective boxes to engage students with critical analysis. Written in a conversational style, Learning Law will leave students feeling more knowledgeable about, and confident in, their interactions with Australian legal institutions and legal professionals. This text is an essential resource that law students will refer to throughout their studies and in the early stages of their career."

Gray on 'The Evolution from Strict Liability to Negligence: When and Why? Part I'

Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'The Evolution from Strict Liability to Neglience: When and Why? Part I'.  The article appears in Volume 94(8) of the Australian Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"Tort law has, viewed through a long lens, moved generally from strict to fault-based liability. This move is not (yet) complete; pockets of strict liability remain. It is important to understand this move. Why, and when, did it occur? The questions, and so the answers, may be related. This article attempts some answers. Part 1 charts the gradual but perceptible shift in common law thinking away from “act at peril” philosophy to one where liability lies where it falls, unless fault of another is shown. While of historical interest, this shift is also of contemporary interest. Given that pockets of strict liability remain in our law, what
rationale, if any, supports them? If most tort law is now fault-based, why persist with any strict liability? In that context, Part 2 considers application of these trends in the context of the tort of private nuisance, traditionally a tort of strict liability."