Roy G Beran1, John A Devereaux2, Donal Buchanan3. 1. University of New South Wales, Australia; Griffith University, Queensland, Australia; Sechenov University, Russia. Electronic address: roy@royberan.com. 2. Law School, University of Queensland, Australia. 3. Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Legal aspects of epilepsy are jurisdiction-dependent, and this analysis has focused on an Australian context;however, the reader can extrapolate to his/her local jurisdiction and/or legal system. EPILEPSY AND DRIVING: The AUSTROADS Guidelines have codified the fitness to drive restrictions to be imposed for both private and commercial drivers. They set out the default positions and the considerations that can be applied to deviate from the default of at least 1year seizure freedom for private license holders and 10years seizure freedom for commercial drivers. EPILEPSY AND EMPLOYMENT: People with epilepsy are broadly excluded from all employment requiring the wearing of a uniform. Only where preemployment medical examination mandates disclosure does the person with epilepsy has to disclose epilepsy to a prospective employer. There are specific laws that control workplace and employment standards that cover occupational health and safety, protection for the disabled, and antidiscrimination. NEGLIGENCE: Negligence relies on establishing: duty of care; breach of that duty; and damage that is not too remote. Once ascertained, liability is established by the relative causation. The Civil Liability Acts served to redefine negligence, causation, and liability. Added consideration attaches to vicarious liability of the employer for the employee and nondelegable duty of care. CONCLUSIONS: This overview has examined three legal aspects of epilepsy, namely, driving, employment, and negligence. The concepts and interpretations should have relative applicability well beyond any narrow confines, limited to a single jurisdiction.
INTRODUCTION: Legal aspects of epilepsy are jurisdiction-dependent, and this analysis has focused on an Australian context;however, the reader can extrapolate to his/her local jurisdiction and/or legal system. EPILEPSY AND DRIVING: The AUSTROADS Guidelines have codified the fitness to drive restrictions to be imposed for both private and commercial drivers. They set out the default positions and the considerations that can be applied to deviate from the default of at least 1year seizure freedom for private license holders and 10years seizure freedom for commercial drivers. EPILEPSY AND EMPLOYMENT: People with epilepsy are broadly excluded from all employment requiring the wearing of a uniform. Only where preemployment medical examination mandates disclosure does the person with epilepsy has to disclose epilepsy to a prospective employer. There are specific laws that control workplace and employment standards that cover occupational health and safety, protection for the disabled, and antidiscrimination. NEGLIGENCE: Negligence relies on establishing: duty of care; breach of that duty; and damage that is not too remote. Once ascertained, liability is established by the relative causation. The Civil Liability Acts served to redefine negligence, causation, and liability. Added consideration attaches to vicarious liability of the employer for the employee and nondelegable duty of care. CONCLUSIONS: This overview has examined three legal aspects of epilepsy, namely, driving, employment, and negligence. The concepts and interpretations should have relative applicability well beyond any narrow confines, limited to a single jurisdiction.