Medical negligence is a growing concern within South Africa.1 The medical environment has great potential for conflict, because even the best trained physicians can commit errors that result in medical disabilities and sometimes in death.2 The conflicts that follow from these errors are mostly fuelled by emotions and they can become very expensive and time-consuming to settle using the litigation process.3 There is a growing recognition that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems in healthcare may alleviate some of the financial and psychological burdens on doctors and patients involved in medical negligence disputes. Mediation is a method of ADR that is flexible and it permits the parties to the dispute to have control over the resolution. A typical medical negligence dispute is driven by intensely emotional factors on the part of injured patients. Victims are not merely seeking financial compensation but they are also looking to understand the circumstances that brought on the event at hand. They want closure. A huge issue with regard to medical negligence litigation is the manner in which the claims are resolved. Litigation provides injured patients and caregivers with a traditional platform for addressing medical negligence claims. However, due to many reasons, this system seems not to be adequate for dealing with disputes arising from alleged medical negligence. Mediation offers a promising solution to the problems surrounding redress of medical negligence disputes. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Universally complications exist concerning insurance cover for the risks posed by pollution damage. Environmental insurance cover can be procured under first-party or third-party insurance. For the latter, the polluter's statutory or civil liability is required. The determination of liability for compensation, especially delictual liability, remains problematic. The right to the environment in section 24 of the Constitution creates a general duty of care. The introduction of a strict liability regime can be recommended to alleviate the burden of proving fault and contributory negligence. Where there is multiple or cumulative causation or the exact identity of the polluter is unknown, potential solutions regarding the allocation of liability include a pollution-share, joint and several, market-share or, as a last resort, a proportional allocation. Actionable damages should include property damage, pure economic loss, clean-up costs and natural resource damages, including compensation for reduced aesthetic value. Due to the uncertainty and potential magnitude of pollution-related claims, insurers have attempted to avoid or limit these risks by including specific pollution exclusion and limitation clauses in policies. Statutory regulation of policy content and prescribed wording for clauses could address problems relating to the interpretation of policy provisions. Various other issues such as the coverage of gradual pollution, the effect of the various triggers of coverage and the potential long-tail liability of insurer, the lack of information and the unpredictability of the risk cause further complications for both the insured and the insurer. Policies should preferably be issued on a `claims-made' basis linked to retroactive dates. Mandatory third-party insurance to the benefit of a third party should be required within specific high-risk industries, specifically for the benefit of the prejudiced person or an environmental remediation fund. The right of a prejudiced party to claim directly from the polluter's liability insurer should be introduced. Currently, the focus appears to be more on protection and environmental remediation than on civil compensation. There is an urgent need for the development of statutory and civil liability compensation mechanisms and for an increased regulation of insurance policies and practices to ensure effective insurance cover to provide compensation for environmental damage. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Universally complications exist concerning insurance cover for the risks posed by pollution damage. Environmental insurance cover can be procured under first-party or third-party insurance. For the latter, the polluter's statutory or civil liability is required. The determination of liability for compensation, especially delictual liability, remains problematic. The right to the environment in section 24 of the Constitution creates a general duty of care. The introduction of a strict liability regime can be recommended to alleviate the burden of proving fault and contributory negligence. Where there is multiple or cumulative causation or the exact identity of the polluter is unknown, potential solutions regarding the allocation of liability include a pollution-share, joint and several, market-share or, as a last resort, a proportional allocation. Actionable damages should include property damage, pure economic loss, clean-up costs and natural resource damages, including compensation for reduced aesthetic value. Due to the uncertainty and potential magnitude of pollution-related claims, insurers have attempted to avoid or limit these risks by including specific pollution exclusion and limitation clauses in policies. Statutory regulation of policy content and prescribed wording for clauses could address problems relating to the interpretation of policy provisions. Various other issues such as the coverage of gradual pollution, the effect of the various triggers of coverage and the potential long-tail liability of insurer, the lack of information and the unpredictability of the risk cause further complications for both the insured and the insurer. Policies should preferably be issued on a `claims-made' basis linked to retroactive dates. Mandatory third-party insurance to the benefit of a third party should be required within specific high-risk industries, specifically for the benefit of the prejudiced person or an environmental remediation fund. The right of a prejudiced party to claim directly from the polluter's liability insurer should be introduced. Currently, the focus appears to be more on protection and environmental remediation than on civil compensation. There is an urgent need for the development of statutory and civil liability compensation mechanisms and for an increased regulation of insurance policies and practices to ensure effective insurance cover to provide compensation for environmental damage. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.