No description available.

Little is known and less is understood about the insurability of liabilities for environmental damage or about the need for, nature, extent or value of the coverages offered by the insurance industry in this field. It is the object of this work to canvass these matters. At the outset, it is sought to focus attention upon the existing environmental liability risks and to i(identify some of the new common law theories that are evolving to meet the demands of society's emerging "environmental consciousness" and thereby broadening the area of risk. Against this background, the provisions of the available environmental liability insurance facilities are then presented in detail, examined and evaluated. Since it cannot be assumed ipso facto that all environmental liabilities are insurable, the insurability question is addressed in the light of the orthodoxies of public policy and insurance principle. Finally, this thesis inquires whether liability insurance can make a positive contribution to environmental regulation and to the promotion of sound environmental values. The first conclusion drawn herein is that the area of risk is sufficiently broad to warrant serious attention both from those at risk and from the insurance industry. Traditional liability insurance facilities are assessed to be inadequate and negative in their handling of the risks, falling considerably short of the goal of effective coverage. However, the new Environmental Impairment Liability Policy is seen as something of a "light in the dark". It is not without its shortcomings (these are adverted to and changes recommended) but, generally speaking, is a worthwhile initiative and a useful model for future development. On the question of the role of liability insurance in environmental regulation, it is concluded that there are indeed ways and means by which the insurance mechanism can help, provided that people in the insurance industry are appropriately motivated. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Academics have often been criticised for their preoccupation with theoretical abstraction and logical deduction and their concomitant failure to address issues of practical importance or exigency. It must therefore be stated at the outset that the recommendations contained in this paper are not confined to a theoretical analysis of the doctrine of mistake. Per contrast, they are motivated by a genuine concern on the part of the writer to alleviate the present discord between South African criminal legal theory and socio-cultural reality. These recommendations are premised upon the advantages of the reception of the normative approach to criminal liability in South Africa, and they have been iterated elsewhere l by the writer in the context of, inter alia, the defence of necessity. The submissions that constitute the core of this paper must, however, be regarded as subject to the following qualification. A successful reception of the normative approach necessitates a change in the existing power relations that are operative in South African courts. To leave its application to the presiding judge and assessors would be to give them the freedom to inflect their decisions with their personal values and prejudices. It has been argued elsewhere2 by the writer that this problem may possibly be solved by the reintroduction of the jury system, suitably loaded to cater for the interests operative in the case. Sustained reflection and exposure to the exigencies of practice has, however, yielded the conclusion that the difficulties that accompanied the jury system and the suspicion with which it was viewed, outweigh any advantages that its re-introduction may have. A possible alternative, and one which, it is submitted, would work well in practice, is the increased use of expert witnesses at the stage prior to conviction, provided that they are suitably qualified (either formally or informally) to adduce evidence on the socio-cultural matrix of relations in which the accused in question lives and moves. In the context of mistake of law, for example, evidence concerning, inter alia, the level of legal knowledge and general education in a particular community could be adduced by persons who are either long-standing members or active participants in the socio-cultural life. of such community. The theoretical views and preferences expressed in this paper should thus be read with the above-mentioned practico-social problems in mind.

The doctrine of common purpose, which hails from English law, was introduced into South African law via the Native Territories Penal Code. The first South African criminal case in which this doctrine was applied outside the field of application of the abovementioned act, was Ry Garnsworthy, where it was formulated as follows: Where two or more persons combine in an undertaking for an illegal purpose, each one of them is liable for anything done by the other of others of the combination, in the furtherance 'of their object, if what was done was what they knew or ought to have known, would be a probable result of their endeavoring to achieve their object.5 According to Visser and Vorster,6 this doctrine was probably imported into our law due to difficulties experienced in 1 D XLVIII.8.17: 'If a man dies after having been struck in the course of a quarrel, the blows of every one who took part in this should be investigated' - own translation. 2. Section 78 of the Native Territories Penal Code Act 24 of 1886 (C) provided: 'If several persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of such common purpose, the commission of which offence was, or ought to have been, known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of such common purpose.' (Quoted in Rabie "The doctrine of common purpose" (1971) SALJ 229.) See also R v Taylor 1920 EDL 318 323.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines the concept of parental liability and the effect it has in deterring juvenile delinquency, with an emphasis on Florida Law. It will also consider the concept's ability to properly compensate victims of juvenile offenses. The thesis focuses on the circumstances in which a parent or guardian may be liable for the actions of a child and how liability insurance law plays a key role in compensating innocent victims. It discusses Florida's public policy of seeking justice by holding parents responsible and the problems that it faces by doing so. The thesis further examines what issues arise when parents are found vicariously liable for their negligence or contribution to a child's offense, but are not covered by liability insurance coverage or the insurers deny coverage.

No description available.