Onderhoudend: Birgit Kuschke

  • 0


Louis Kotzé stel vrae aan Birgit Kuschke oor haar artikel in LitNet Akademies (Regte): Vestiging van versekeringseise teen omgewingskade wat deur hidrobreking aangerig word.



In afdeling 2 argumenteer jy dat “[S]kadeloosstelling in die algemeen vereis … dat die besoedeling verwyder en die omgewing na sy oorspronklike toestand herstel of gerehabiliteer moet word.” Is dit ’n realistiese vooruitsig om die omgewing tot ’n oorspronklike toestand te herstel soos dit was voor skade ingetree het? Is dit byvoorbeeld moontlik, vanuit ’n ekologiese perspektief, om mynbesoedeling volledig te rehabiliteer, en welke rol sou die versekeringreg in dié verband kon speel?

Dis nie ‘n eenvoudige vraag nie. Ek het in my LLD-proefskrif, “Insurance against damage caused by pollution” (Unisa, 2009) met die aangeleentheid gehandel. Dit is aanlyn beskikbaar, en hierdie aspek word in verskeie hoofstukke behandel – sien byvoorbeeld hoofstukke 2 en 4. (Ek heg onder aan hierdie dokument ‘n uittreksel vir u aandag aan.)

Dit spreek vanself dat, in sommige gevalle, die omgewing nooit weer na sy vorige toestand herstel kan word nie. ‘n Mens sal byvoorbeeld nooit die vernietiging van 300 jaar oue bome kan herstel nie. Internasionaal word daar verwys na hierdie probleem en na eise wat herstel ten doel het, as die “lost trees awards”. Soos wat dit gaan met ander skadeloosstellingseise, sal dit van die beste poging1 moontlik om na die vorige toestand te herstel, afhang.

Die omvang van omgewingskade en eise vir die herstel daarvan kan vanselfsprekend nie slegs op vermoënskade fokus nie, maar sluit ook in die herstel- of vervangingskoste; waardevermindering van die eiendom; vergoeding vir die verminderde gebruik en genot daarvan; vir ongemak; en laastens ook sogenaamde stigma-skade. Verskeie toekennings is al internasionaal gemaak. Laasgenoemde word veroorsaak deur die persepsie van skade, byvoorbeeld waar die publiek ag dat ‘n eiendom in waarde verminder bloot omdat dit in die omgewing van of naby ‘n besoedelde gebied geleë is, alhoewel daar geen direkte besoedelingskade aan die eiendom self aangerig is nie; waar die besoedeling uit die weg geruim is, maar daar steeds ‘n stigma van agtergeblewe skade aan die eiendom kleef.2

Die assessering en kwanitifisering van omgewingskade sal nooit ‘n presiese of eksakte wetenskap kan wees nie, en sal altyd maar afhang van die hof se beste skatting in die omstandighede van elke geval. Markpryse en herstelkoste sal meestal as riglyne moet dien. Laasgenoemde is al in ons howe in die saak van Truck and General Insurance Co Ltd and another v Verulam Fuel Distributors CC and another 2007 2 SA 26 (SCA) erken.

In die woorde van die hof in die Lim Poh Choo saak: “There is really only one certainty; the future will prove the award to be either too high or too low.”3

Daar geld wetgewing in sommige lande wat versekeringdekking of finansiële waarborge vereis vir vasgestelde bedrae in bepaalde bedrywe. Die VSA bedryf ‘n fonds vir die herstel van omgewingskade, kortweg na verwys as CERCLA. Inligting daaroor is aanlyn beskikbaar.

Ander aspekte wat in gedagte gehou kan word, is die invoering van skuldlose aanspreeklikheid vir omgewingskade, asook moontlike statutêre toedeling van kousaliteit waar meerdere besoedelaars betrokke is.

In welke mate moet Suid-Afrika se omgewingswetgewing verander om eerder statutêr versekering te vereis of verpligtend te maak vir omgewingskade? Wat is die verhouding tussen die finansiëlesekerheidstelling-bepalings in die Nasionale Omgewingsbestuurwet en die Minerale en Petroleum Hulpbronnewet met omgewingsversekering, en kan hierdie bepalings gebruik word in samehang met die versekeringsregime wat die artikel voorstel?

Ek ondersteun die gedagte van verpligte versekering in geteikende bedrywe. Die gevolgtrekking word ook in my genoemde proefskrif gemaak. Daar bestaan byvoorbeeld reeds verpligte versekeringsdekking ten opsigte van persone in die afvalverwyderingsbedryf, byvoorbeeld afvalvervoerders en afvalverwerkers. Verpligte versekeringdekking word ook in die olie- en brandstofbedrywe, byvoorbeeld vir die opgaar en vervoer daarvan, vereis. Operateurs, vervaardigers en gebruikers van kernmateriaal in die kernkragbedrywe word ook deur wetgewing geteiken. Die meeste hiervan word deur internasionale reg vereis of voorgeskryf. Ten aansien van mynboubedrywighede is my mening dat waar ‘n wet tans finansiële sekerheidstelling vereis vir die uitreiking van ‘n bedryfspermit, hierdie sekerheidstelling breedweg alle operasionele verpligtinge sowel as rehabilitasie van omgewingskade insluit.4 Die gevaar is dat die fokus waarskynlik op eersgenoemde eerder as op laasgenoemde val, en mens kan bevraagteken of daar diep genoeg in die kristalbal gekyk word om toekomstige skade te voorsien en te kwantifiseer. Die sekerheidstelling kan in die vorm van versekeringsdekking wees, dog finansiële waarborge en deposito’s insluit. Omdat premies vir aanspreeklikheidversekering oor tyd afbetaal kan word, en die omvang van werklike toekomstige aanspreeklikheid dek (natuurlik tot ‘n maksimum) en nie nou reeds absolute kwantifisering vereis nie, maak dit sodanige dekking aantreklik. Die koste daaraan verbonde sal egter ‘n verdere las op die bedryf plaas. Soos ek in my proefskrif vermeld het: “It is also proposed that mandatory comprehensive public registers must be kept within specified industries and that monitoring of sufficient financial cover via policy and licensing conditions must be increased.” Ek verwys u verder na ‘n verslag oor die Suid-Afrikaanse posisie rondom verpligte versekering (Mandatory insurance) wat in 2010 by die AIDA Wêreldkongres aangebied is (sien uittreksel van die relevante gedeelte aangeheg hier onder) wat op die webwerf www.aida.org.uk gevind kan word.

As mens daaraan dink dat die regering toenemend beweeg na ’n situasie waar die omgewingsaspekte van myne deur die Department van Minerale Hulpbronne gereguleer word in plaas van die Departement Omgewingsake (sien die onlangse wysigings aan voorgenoemde wette), hoe sal die versekeringsreg moet verander om as moontlike plaasvervanger te dien vir daardie gevalle waar die regering as gevolg van hierdie mandaatverskuiwing nie meer in staat is om die omgewingsimpakte van myne (insluitend die brekingsbedryf) effektief te reguleer nie? Met ander woorde, kan die versekeringsreg as plaasvervanger dien vir gebrekkige omgewingsregulering, en indien wel, in welke mate?

Hierdie vraag fokus op ‘n praktiese eerder as ‘n regsprobleem. Net soos daar in die versekeringsbedryf ‘n “twin peaks”5-stelsel ontstaan het, waar jurisdiksie in die minister van finansies sowel as die minister van handel en nywerheid gevestig het, is dit hier ook die geval. Dit bly gevaarlik om interdepartementele samewerking te vereis en effektief af te dwing, dog die twee wette waarna die skrywer verwys, loop saam, en moet noodwendigerwys saam geadministreer word. Indien verligte versekeringsdekking vereis word, kan mens voorstel dat die kwantifisering van die dekkingsbedrag direk verband hou met die omgewingsimpakstudies wat deur die toepaslike wet vereis word. Die finansiële sekerheidstelling soos hier bo na verwys sal ook deur dubbeljurisdiksie getref word en sal so oorvleuelend bestuur moet word vir doeleindes van die uitreik van permitte en lisensies. Sien ook die antwoord op vrae 2 en 3 hier bo, dat monitering van voldoende sekerheidstelling natuurlik via lisensiëring aanbeveel word.

Uittreksel ten aansien van vraag 1

6.6.2.3.3 Clean-up or reinstatement costs as “property damage”

In recent South African case law on the interpretation of a statutory description of “property damage”, the interpretation of the term was found to include cover for the insured’s liability to pay clean-up costs for ecological damage caused.6 It was held that where the insurer wished to exclude “ecological damage” from any other kind of “property damage”, it should have done so expressly.7 Where the wording states that “remediation costs must be incurred because of property damage”, a case can be made that the insured does not have to limit the claim against his liability insurer to the exact property damage, but only to the damages and compensation incurred because of damage to property.8 Although the wording of the policy must be interpreted in the context of the policy, it often does not offer clear solutions to address these problems.

The word “reinstate” usually refers to the repair of damage where there is a partial loss, whereas “replace” refers to a replacement where there is total loss. “Restoration” includes both these scenarios. Some policies contain a reinstatement clause, which allows the insurer to elect to reinstate rather than to pay out the value of the loss or damage under the policy.9

Clean-up and restoration costs

There is little room for misinterpretation where the words “clean-up costs” or “restoration costs” are used. Although “reparation” requires full compensation, it has no single, logically determined, fixed meaning in law.10 One must ask whether the general term “damages” also includes these clean-up and salvage costs that are incurred during remedial works, by examining the wording and intention of the entire policy.11 As reinstatement is a secondary measurement of damage or loss in South African law, this measurement will be appropriate to quantify clean-up costs.12

Whereas only one judgment has been given in South African law, diverse judgments have been given on these issues in the UK.13 The term “damages” has been interpreted to mean “sums which fall to be paid by reason of some breach of duty or obligation, whether that duty or obligation is imposed by contract, the general law or by legislation”.14 On the other hand it has also been held that the principal purpose of interference-with-property cover was to provide protection against claims based on tort, but not also against statutory claims.15

In the USA “clean-up costs” were accepted as a form of claimable “damages” only from about the 1990s. The 1998 ISO pollution exclusion clause, for example, expressly bars cover for “any loss, or expense arising out of any request, demand, order or statutory or regulatory requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean-up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize, or in any way respond to or assess the effects of ‘pollutants’; or claim or suit by or on behalf of a governmental authority for damages because of these activities”.16 The general term “damages” has generally been held to be ambiguous and has often been construed in favour of the insured, therefore including all financial losses that the insured reasonably would have accepted the term “damages” to cover.17

In Belgium the state remains liable for the process of restoring the environment, and can institute a claim for both “environmental damage”18 and “‘environmental impairment” costs.19 The latter includes all collective interests as well as all negative consequences caused by pollution.20

As mentioned above, South African courts have held that statutory clean-up costs for ecological damage fall within the broad description of “property damage” under a liability insurance policy.21

The term “compensation” cannot be interpreted as a mere synonym for “damages”, and it also remains open for interpretation whether it includes clean-up costs and expenses. This will be the case provided that it can be read as such in the context of the entire policy.22

Currently, policyholders in South Africa as well as in other countries are warned to include cover eo nomine for clean-up costs to avoid lack of cover.23 Again it is suggested that specific reference must be made in the contract on whether clean-up costs are included or excluded, as is the case in the ISO policy exclusions and the South African PLIP policies.24 The extent of these costs and whether it is possible to clean up or restore to exactly the original condition of the environment is dealt with in the evaluation of natural resource damages below.25

6.6.2.5 Natural resource damages

6.6.2.5.1 Descriptions

Natural resource damages26 are those caused to the environment per se, for example, damage to biodiversity and to the landscape.27 The term “natural resources” is, for example, defined in the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act28 as “the soil, the water sources and the vegetation, excluding weeds and invader plants”, yet this applies only for purpose of this Act.29 The market value of property does not always reflect the true intrinsic value of the property to the insured. In some cases the asset, although intrinsically valuable, will technically have no market value at all.30 This makes the secondary measure of loss, namely reinstatement to the previous condition, a suitable one.

6.6.2.5.2 Valuation and quantification methods

Restoration costs must serve as the basic measure of damages where any other quantification or value is absent, although the costs of restoration might be grossly disproportionate to the marginal ecological benefit gained from such restorative actions.31 It is difficult to put a price tag on public air, water, wildlife and scenery, as the market value cannot always reflect the true intrinsic value.32 Once again, this confirms that the secondary measure of loss, namely reinstatement, is suitable for this kind of situation.

Existence value or use value is clearly to the benefit of individuals, and a claim for its loss is analogous to a civil damages claim for “pain and suffering”. Animals and plants could be driven to extinction, coral reefs destroyed and air quality reduced, resulting in the destruction of entire ecosystems.33 This situation does not easily fit into the classic compensation system. This should be made possible especially where the health and well-being of the community is affected.34

The valuation of these claims for the spoiling of a natural resource is commonly known as a “non-use contingent valuation”.35 “Indirect” compensation can be awarded for damage to natural resources by the enforcement of restoration or reinstatement measures.36

Even when on private property, the valuation of natural resource damage based on a depreciation in property value does not offer an exact valuation of the damage.37 A change in environmental quality will, however, certainly affect most of the economic values that relate to that property.38 It should stand to reason that an individual owner can ask for complete restoration of contaminated natural resources only if the restoration costs are not completely disproportionate compared to the value of property.39

An issue that affects the extent of the damages is the question as to what degree or condition the resource must be restored. The Water Resources Act40 in the UK, for example, provides that a person who must remedy or prevent pollution must “as far as is reasonable practicable to do so [to restore] the waters, including any flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters, to their state immediately before the matter became present in the waters”.41 It stands to reason that it is not always possible to restore or clean-up to the original state of the environment.42

As stated previously, because courts are universally reluctant to allow claims for pure financial losses,43 some countries introduced express legislative provisions to allow insurance claims for these losses.44 The exception is found in marine pollution claims, where the loss or reduction of professional use of natural resources due to pollution lead to financial losses for fishermen and beach-front tourism operators and are automatically seen to fall under the concept of “damages”.45 The position in South African law on whether compensable claims for pure economic loss can be brought is discussed in chapter 4 above.46

Assessing pure economic loss, especially where future economic losses are concerned, proves to be difficult. In the words of the court in the Lim Poh Choo case, “[t]here is really only one certainty; the future will prove the award to be either too high or too low.” 47

An example of statutory regulation in South Africa that removes the burden of proving causation can be found in The Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act48 that provides that “irrespective of the Companies Act49 or the Close Corporations Act,50 the directors of a company or the members of a close corporation are held jointly and severally liable for ‘any unacceptable negative impact on the environment, including damage, degradation or pollution advertently or inadvertently caused51 by the company or close corporation which they represent or represented’.”52 This is also a good example of the introduction of statutory retroactive causation, as no time limit is set for such a claim.53

A brief reference can be made here to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Bill – soon to be promulgated, which introduced a joint and several strict statutory product liability. This is in line with the strict product liability found in most countries. The Bill introduces a regime of strict and joint and several liability of producers, importers, distributors and retailers of “goods”,54 where any consumer is harmed by “unsafe” goods, which the person liable could not reasonably have discovered.55 This could serve as an example for a similar dispensation in damage caused to the environment.

Uittreksel ten aansien van vraag 2 en vraag 3

II. QUESTIONNAIRE

PART A

(Questionnaire question 1. Basic factors)

1.1 Cause of required mandatory insurance cover

1.1.1 By law

1.1.1.1 National law

Statutes have been promulgated for purposes of introducing mandatory insurance within the following specific industries:

(a) Relating specifically to operations and technologies that affect the environment, mandatory insurance is required within the nuclear industry, the oil and petroleum industries, for the liabilities of waste disposal contractors, operators of waste disposal facilities, transporters of waste, for underground or aboveground storage tanks. Most of these schemes are in accordance with international law as stated below.56 This will hereinafter be referred to as “environmental liability insurance”.

(b) Professional bodies, such as the Health Professions Council of South Africa,57 and The Law Society of South Africa58 require their members to procure professional liability insurance cover before they may practice. For purposes of the rest of this questionnaire and this report this type of insurance is hereinafter referred to as “professional liability insurance”.

(c) Insurance contributions must be made by employers for the benefit of their employees in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130 of 1993, and for unemployment in terms of the Unemployment insurance Act 30 of 1966 and Unemployment Insurance Contributions Act 4 of 2002. These types of insurance are hereinafter referred to as “workplace unemployment insurance”, and “workplace occupational injuries and diseases insurance”. Pension fund contributions are currently not mandatory.

(d) Insurance must be procured for the carriage of persons or the transport of goods. Operators are required to procure insurance cover in terms of national and provincial legislation.59 This will hereinafter be referred to as “transport insurance”.

(e) At the moment proposals serve before Parliamentary committees for the introduction of mandatory health care insurance, and a mandatory National Pension Fund. Both are in their initial phases and realistic expectations place their introduction beyond 2011.

1.1.1.2 International law

South Africa has ratified, signed and acceded a multitude of international conventions and adheres to their provisions relating to mandatory insurance.60

The provisions that apply in the nuclear and waste management industries serve as examples. References to the most important conventions and their current status in South African law, as well as their application can be found under Par C below.

1.1.2 By other co-contracting party

Most forms of mandatory insurance are imposed by private agreements between persons who stand in a specific relationship.

Examples include the following:

1.1.2.1 a consumer is required to obtain insurance cover, or asset insurance, to the benefit of his credit grantor (for example where life insurance on the life of a debtor is required by a his bank);

1.1.2.2 a lessor of property requires a lessee to procure property or liability insurance;

1.1.2.3 a client may require insurance as security from independent contractors such as designers, builders, engineers and so forth, to cover their liabilities towards their client in specific projects. Where a tour operator may require tourists to procure life and personal accident cover.

1.1.2.4 Although insurance is not mandatory by operation of statute or regulation, the risk of incurring liabilities towards the state, for example for clean-up costs, and potential liability towards third parties force persons to obtain insurance cover. Facility pollution liability serves as an example.

For purposes of the rest of this questionnaire and the report, insurance cover that is required by a co-contracting party, whether liability insurance, property insurance or first-party insurance to the benefit of a third party. For purposes of the rest of this report it is hereinafter referred to as “insurance procured due to agreement”.

The detail regarding each of these forms of mandatory insurance follows under separate headings below.

 

 


Eindnotas

1 Sogenaamde “Best effort”.

2 Sien byvoorbeeld: “Finnish Environmental Damage and Compensation Act 1994 that provides that a ‘reasonable’ compensation may be provided for a prejudiced party for non-pecuniary loss linked to the reduced use of his property. The term ‘reasonable’ is to be defined in terms of duration of the nuisance and the degree to which the prejudiced party could have reduced or prevented it. This also incorporates the type of damage claimed in accordance with ‘lost trees’-awards. Van Daele 18 describes the situation where a value for ‘onzekerheid en angst’ relating to one’s environment, or the unpleasant side-effect of a bad smell caused by pollution are immeasurable; see also the discussion in general in the law of delict and the law of contract on the possibility of claiming ‘pure economic losses.”

3 Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington AHA 1980 AC 174; also Harpwood 410–413 on the fairness and efficiency of tort compensation.

4 Sien byvoorbeeld artikel 41 van die Wet op Minerale en Petroleum Hulpbronne, wet 28 van 2002.

5 Hierdie benaming het mettertyd vastrapplek in die bedryf gekry.

6 See 33.

7 Par 23 of the judgment.

8 See Fogleman 1541 for various arguments and counter-arguments on this point.

9 Merkin 358 et seq on the benefits of a reinstatement clause and the time limit to exercise the option to reinstate.

10 Bowman & Boyle 17.

11 For an extensive discussion of this point, see the Report by the Comit’e Europ’een des Assurances (“CEA”) Study on first-party legal obligations for clean-ups and corresponding insurance covers in European Countries Paris CEA (21 October 1998).

12 See the discussion of this measurement in par 6.6.2.2 above.

13 In Bartoline Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc and another 2007 1 All ER (Comm) 1043 the court rejected a wide interpretation of the word “damages” and denied a claim under a public liability policy for statutory clean-up costs; see also King v Brandywine Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd 2004 2 All ER (Comm) 443; see Fogleman 1537 for additional case law in point.

14 As per J Greene in Hall Brothers Steamship Company Ltd v Young 748.

15 Bartoline Limited v Royal & Sun Alliance Plc and another 1043.

16 As examined by Fogleman 436.

17 See Fogleman 492–494 for an extensive list of USA case law on this point; it was held by some courts that as CERCLA makes a distinction between “clean-up costs” and “natural resource damages”, the former should not be included in the general term “damages”.

18 Art 2,7 as “any loss or disadvantage suffered by an individual or by a legal entity as a result of marine pollution of the marine environment, whatever the cause may be”.

19 Art 2,7 describes this term as “any negative influence on the marine environment for as long as it does not constitute damages”.

20 Belgian Act 12 March 1999 art 2,6; art 3; art 37.

21 Truck and General Insurance Co Ltd v Verulam Fuel Distributors CC and another par 13.

22 In the opinion of Fogleman 1540.

23 See Truck and General Insurance Co Ltd v Verulam Fuel Distributors CC and another par 23; Fogleman (2007) 825 in reaction to the judgement given in the Bartoline case.

24 Special Risks Underwriters Yesterday’s Policies won’t meet tomorrow’s needs: The PLIP policies (1992) 3.

25 See par 6.6.4 below.

26 Also known as “NRD” claims, which have significantly increased over the past decade. See Donnellon T, Rusk G “Natural Resource Damage: Risk Management Implications Associated with Natural Resource Damage Claims” 2005 Environmental Claims Journal 249for a discussion of risk management by insurers and reinsurers and the impact of the increase of these claims on their environmental loss reserves.

27 As stated by Faure (ed) 138.

28 Act 43 of 1983.

29 S 1 item 18.

30 See Reinecke et al par 303 on these shortcomings of market value as the primary method of quantifying damage or loss.

31 State of Ohio v Department of the Interior 880 F 2d 432 (DC Cir 1989).

32 Larsson 545 considers the values placed on “services provided by natural environments”, such as non-consumable recreational activities on 546; see also Sclafane S “Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly: NRD Claims Muddy Insurance Waters” 2005 (April) National Underwriter Property &Casualty 24 that there is no general standard based on what the “average person” expects to see in nature that can be applied to assess these damages, and the merit of the formula applied by the state of New Jersey to develop a “settlement number” to force insurers to settle claims.

33 These all serve as examples of public international goods.

34 Own translation of the situation where “volksgezondheid in gedrang kom”.

35 De Ketelaere 27.

36 See De Ketelaere 29–39 for a comprehensive examination of valuation methods for environmental damage.

37 In the opinion of Larsson 545.

38 As reiterated by De Ketelaere 39.

39 This is also the position in German law in s 251.2 of the German Civil Code.

40 Act of 1991; see also the discussion in chap 7 par 7.3 below on this position in the UK.

41 S 16; see also Fogleman V “The Widening Gap in Cover for Environmental Liabilities in Public Liability policies” 2007 (June) Journal of Planning and Environmental Law 816 819.

42 See the Finnish Environmental Act s 6; Norwegian Pollution Control Act 1981 par 58; Larsson 541 suggests the development of something called “ambition norms” for purpose of clean-up and restoration.

43 See the discussion of claims for pure economic losses in South African law in chap 4 par 4.2.6.2.5; Bussani M, Palmer VV & Parisi F “Liability for Pure Economic Loss in Europe: an Economic Restatement” 2003 51) The American Journal of Comparative Law 113 that the notion of “pure economic loss” and liability for this type of loss varies considerably and that Western countries are divided over these issues; see the discussion of this principle, also known as the “bright-line rule” in Larsson 395; Faure (ed) 136; claims in the USA were disallowed in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co v Flint US Supreme Court 275 US 303 (1927); General Public Utilities v Glass Kitchens of Lancaster Inc 374 PaSuper 203 542A 2d 567 (1988); Adkins v Thomas Solvent Company 440 Mich 293 487 NW 2d 715 (1992); Chance v BP Chemicals Inc 77 Ohio st 3d 17 670 NE 2d 985 (1996); yet claims were allowed in Local Joint Executive Bd & Culinary Workers Union, Local No 226 v Stern 98 Nev 409 651 P 2d 637 (1982); Burgess v M/V Tamano 370 Supp 247 (DMe1973); Brown v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation) 35 F 3d 717(3d Cir 1994); Terra-Products Inc v Kraft General Foods Inc 653 NE 2d 89 (Ind Ct App. 1995).

44 See for example the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 43 USCA d1811; Fisherman’s Contingency Fund 43 USCA dd1841-1846 in the USA; the 1994 Finnish Environmental Act; see specifically also the South African Consumer Protection Bill s 61(5) which provides that “harm” includes death, injury, illness, loss of or physical damage to property, and any economic loss (own emphasis).

45 Larsson 537 describes pure financial loss in such a situation as including “certain loss of profit (possibly identifiable as a form of lucrum cessans), business interruptions, professional loss of use of natural resources, but not a failure to make a potential future profit”; see also Commité Maritime International CMI Yearbook: Admissibility and Assessment of Claims for Pollution Damage Part II (1993) 95.

46 Chap 4 pars 4.2.6.2.7, 4.2.6.4.4.

47 Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington AHA 1980 AC 174; also Harpwood 410–413 on the fairness and efficiency of tort compensation.

48 Act 28 of 2002, as discussed in par 3.4.4.8 of the text above.

49 Act 61 of 1973.

50 Act 69 of 1984.

51 Own emphasis.

52 S 38(2).

53 See also its effect on the trigger of claims in par 6.3.2 above.

54 S 1 of the Bill, defines “goods” as follows: “includes (a) anything marketed for human consumption;
(b) any tangible object not otherwise contemplated in paragraph (a), including any medium on which anything is or may be written or encoded; (c) any literature, music, photograph, motion picture, game, information, data, software, code or other intangible product written or encoded on any medium or a licence to use any such intangible product; (d) a legal interest in land or any other immovable property, other than an interest that falls within the definition.”

55 S 61(1) states that any consumer who is harmed by unsafe goods, has the right to hold anyone involved in getting the product into the market, irrespective of negligence, liable for any hazard arising from or associated with such risks; joint and several liability is introduced by s 61(3) and s 61(6). A court determines the extent and monetary value of any damages; specific defences are allowed in s 61(4), where a person acts in compliance with a public regulation; where it would be unreasonable to expect the producer or supplier to discover the hazard at the time of his involvement. “Harm” in terms of s 61(5) of the Bill includes death, injury, illness, loss of or physical damage to property, any economic loss.

56 See par 1.1.1.2 below.

57 See http://hpcsa.co.za.

58 See http://www.lssa.org.za.

59 National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009, specifically sections s61(2); s69; s72; S81(bb); the mandatory insurance to be taken out in terms of this statute is in addition to the cover provided for road accidents in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. No premiums are levied for purposes of this fund. A petroleum levy funds the RAF, and claims are managed by the State.

60 See par 1.1.1.2 below.

  • 0

Reageer

Jou e-posadres sal nie gepubliseer word nie. Kommentaar is onderhewig aan moderering.


 

Top