IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/ajlecn/v10y2019i1p15n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No-Fault Versus Strict Liability Compensation Systems in Medical Malpractice Law in Vietnam in Comparision with Belgium, France, and England

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen Thi Bao Anh

    (Can Tho College, Law, Can Tho, Vietnam)

Abstract

Medical malpractice is a form of professional negligence and such a negligence forms part of the law of tort. As an alternative to the tort or fault-based system in medical malpractice, a no-fault compensation system has been viewed as having the potential to overcome problems inherent in the tort system. This is through the provision of fair, speedy and adequate compensation for medically injured victims. A no-fault compensation system allows patients to be compensated without proof of provider’s fault or negligence. Similar to no-fault schemes, the strict liability system is not fault-based although it belongs to tort law. Successful claims are paid in a uniform manner using a fixed benefits schedule and include compensation for both economic and non-economic (pain and suffering losses) without the necessity of proving negligence through a tort claim. This study focuses on the comparison of no-fault compensation systems versus strict liability systems between Vietnam to Belgium, France, and England. The distinctions in Belgium, France, and England can be the lessons for the development of a no-fault compensation system as well as strict liability system in Vietnam.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen Thi Bao Anh, 2019. "No-Fault Versus Strict Liability Compensation Systems in Medical Malpractice Law in Vietnam in Comparision with Belgium, France, and England," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:10:y:2019:i:1:p:15:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2018-0004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2018-0004
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ajle-2018-0004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:10:y:2019:i:1:p:15:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.