Database

Dementia science has developed some remarkably sophisticated tools with the aims of understanding the course of the underlying neurodegeneration and opportunities to prevent it or slow it down.  Despite valiant efforts to portray the findings in the light of a, favoured, disease model, the factual results don’t fit in. Interventions that should have worked, don’t. Among the early promises was that negligent, and therefore preventable,  triggers of dementia would be identified. Traumatic brain injury and sports concussion were presumed to be among them. The purpose of this paper is to explain: the important factual results, what really does link brain trauma and dementia and why some people develop dementia while others do not. The explanations are obvious in retrospect and provide a strong narrative basis for expert testimony in dementia liability claims. At present, and increasingly clearly, the science indicates no causal link between either brain injury or concussion and s

All kinds of insurer will at some point need to risk assess AI systems where these influence their commercial policy-holders. AI systems automatically generate selected information outcomes intended as advice or for direct control of processes. Who is liable for any attributable damage? The question applies now, or will soon apply, wherever information processing is routine. The answer: liability is vicarious. Whoever authorises the use of the AI system is strictly liable. This is a direct consequence of the way in which AI systems work. Understanding AI Systems An AI system is software which takes the place once solely occupied by meticulous analytical logic programming. It provides an automated decision-making process between the prompt for an information response and the output of that response. However, unlike conventional programming, AI systems are probabilistic, not analytical. Decisions are weighted according to the probability with which they simulate successful outcomes in da

England began lockdown 2.0 on the 5th November. Much has been learned since September when lockdown 2.0 would have saved a lot of lives. Starting on the 5th of November it came rather late in the day and even before it has ended, it is quite clear that lockdown 3.0 should be expected. This note is based on analysis of public data. Interventions definitely work. The problem is doing the right thing at the right time.

Many parts of the world have experienced a period when infection status testing became reliable and meaningful. However, the expected success of the much awaited vaccines, now about to be approved, will inevitably create testing uncertainty, provide greater opportunities for false claims and create new costs for liability insurers. Regulators should consider making a requirement for double testing. This would not only protect citizens from unwarranted restrictions of personal freedom and associated costs but would create reasonable certainty of facts at common law. A Limitation period of three years will create ample opportunities for claims supported by doubtful evidence.

The report provides a full account of addiction analysed against the standard headings used by the common law: breach of duty, foreseeability, causation, proximity, indemnity etc. On this basis, new addictants such as caffeine and sugar are assessed. The report sells for £550 plus VAT where applicable. write to andrew@reliabilityoxford.co.uk for further details. Picture sources: By Pauk https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Cannabis_sativa2.jpg By Romain Behar – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1219848 By Julius Schorzman – Own work, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=107645 Website privacy policy This website is operated by Re: Liability (Oxford) Ltd. We take your privacy very seriously therefore we urge to read this policy very carefully because it contains important information about on: who we are, how and why we collect, store, use and share personal information, your rights in relation to

Addiction is not new. Drug trade wars have been fought. Legislation passed. Empires funded. Social ills disguised, profits made, careers progressed, lawyers enriched, jails filled, politicians acclaimed, lives ruined. Fundamental to addiction is that humans are strongly adapted to both habit formation and habit reinforcement. Whether these be physical habits such as how to walk or kick a football, social habits such as preferring to speak with people who have the same interests, cognitive biases such as selecting evidence which supports our view, or political biases such as liberalism or conservatism. These are all, to some extent, habits. Addictive behaviour is indicative of particularly strong habit reinforcement. Addiction is built upon our neurological habit-forming processes, our desire for pleasure, our capacity to prefer perverse arguments, our need for social conformity (or the reverse), and highly unpleasant withdrawal effects, lest we forget. Understandably, given the machine