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.

For almost twenty years, the general delictual claim as found in par. 823 (!) BGB formed the basis for product liability claims against producers in Germany. In 1985, however, a European Directive on Product Liability was issued and in 1990 Germany enacted the Product Liability Act. Setting a strict liability standard, the Act was to operate in tandem with the existing general delictual claim. Since producers in any event find it very difficult to successfully defeat product liability claims based on par. 823 BGB, the Act should not drastically change the landscape of German product liability jurisprudence. In South African product liability claims fall under the Lex Aquiliae which has fault as its cornerstone. Although our Courts are willing to assist a plaintiff by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loq11it11r, the German experience has shown that procedural devices do not provide a permanent solution to the problem of product liability. In the long run legislation is the best way to bring about a rational and equitable system of strict liability. / Mercantile law / LL.M.

For almost twenty years, the general delictual claim as found in par. 823 (!) BGB formed the basis for product liability claims against producers in Germany. In 1985, however, a European Directive on Product Liability was issued and in 1990 Germany enacted the Product Liability Act. Setting a strict liability standard, the Act was to operate in tandem with the existing general delictual claim. Since producers in any event find it very difficult to successfully defeat product liability claims based on par. 823 BGB, the Act should not drastically change the landscape of German product liability jurisprudence. In South African product liability claims fall under the Lex Aquiliae which has fault as its cornerstone. Although our Courts are willing to assist a plaintiff by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loq11it11r, the German experience has shown that procedural devices do not provide a permanent solution to the problem of product liability. In the long run legislation is the best way to bring about a rational and equitable system of strict liability. / Mercantile law / LL.M.

Este trabalho trata da relação entre a teoria formalista do direito elaborada por Ernest Weinrib e sua teoria de fundamentação da responsabilidade civil derivada do formalismo. O objetivo do trabalho é mostrar que, apesar de o formalismo apresentar uma formulação distintiva e inovadora de racionalidade jurídica, que enfatiza a relação entre forma e conteúdo do direito, o modelo de racionalidade jurídica do formalismo não fornece uma explicação adequada para algumas áreas do direito e, especificamente no caso da responsabilidade civil, da responsabilidade objetiva, que, nessa visão, é considerada um erro jurídico. O formalismo jurídico weinribiano é um projeto teórico ambicioso que a um só tempo procura rechaçar posições céticas como os estudos críticos do direito (critical legal studies) e posições instrumentalistas, especialmente a análise econômica do direito e o positivismo jurídico. Ele apresenta uma teoria geral que mostra o direito como um lócus de racionalidade moral imanente e um método, fundado na inteligibilidade imanente, para compreender essa racionalidade e ver o direito como um fenômeno autônomo em relação à política e a outras esferas de racionalidade. O método formalista permite a intelecção do direito como um fenômeno imanentemente coerente por meio da apreensão das estruturas organizadoras e justificadoras implícitas nos arranjos jurídicos, isto é, as formas da justiça corretiva e da justiça distributiva. Com base nisso, o formalismo sustenta que a forma imanente ao direito privado e, consequentemente, à responsabilidade civil é a justiça corretiva. Este trabalho reconstrói criticamente as principais teses que integram o formalismo e que são fundamentais para entender a rejeição à responsabilidade objetiva, considerada uma monstruosidade conceitual, com especial ênfase na premissa epistemológica formalista da inteligibilidade imanente como a melhor maneira de se compreender o direito e na premissa da coerência estrutural que os arranjos jurídicos devem apresentar. A tese discute o modo como o formalismo jurídico se insere no debate metodológico contemporâneo, definindo o formalismo jurídico como uma teoria de avaliação e justificação jurídica e, portanto, dotada de uma dimensão prescritiva, e apresentando o impacto dessa definição na postura que o formalismo assume em relação à responsabilidade objetiva. A tese ainda analisa a relação entre essa dimensão prescritiva e o posicionamento do formalismo em relação à responsabilidade objetiva, rotulando-a de erro jurídico, e conclui com uma discussão sobre as razões desse posicionamento que, argumentase, é equivocado , que se baseiam na assunção das premissas da inteligibilidade imanente e do critério de coerência estrita que marcam o método de conhecimento formalista. / This dissertation focuses on the relationship between juridical formalism as elaborated by Ernest Weinrib and his theory of the foundation of tort law. The dissertation argues that despite formalisms distinctive and innovative account of legal rationality that emphasizes the relationship between laws form and substance, this account does not provide an adequate explanation for specific areas of law. Particularly in the case of tort law it does not adequately explain strict liability, which is deemed a juridical error. Weinribs juridical formalism is an ambitious theoretical project that challenges: skeptical accounts of law, such as critical legal studies; instrumentalists account of law exemplified by economical analysis of law; and juridical positivism. Weinribs theory attempts to explain law as a locus of immanent moral rationality. The theory is based on a methodology that adopts the premise of immanent intelligibility as a way to comprehend this rationality. This approach allows the theorist to grasp law as a phenomenon autonomous from politics and other spheres of rationality. The formalist method allows the intelligibility of law as an immanently coherent phenomenon through the apprehension of the organizing and justifying structures implicit in juridical arrangements, i.e., the forms of corrective justice and distributive justice with which formalism argues that the immanent form of private law and, therefore, of tort law is corrective justice. This dissertation reconstructs critically the main theses that support formalism, which are essential to understanding its rejection of strict liability considered a conceptual monstrosity. This dissertation focuses on the formalist epistemological assumption of immanent intelligibility as the best way of comprehending law and on the premise of internal structural coherence that juridical arrangements should display. This thesis discusses the way in which juridical formalism can be located within the contemporary methodological debate, and defines formalism as an evaluative and justificatory juridical theory. As such, formalism encompasses a prescriptive dimension. This dissertation also identifies how the definition of formalism as a prescriptive theory impacts on its analysis of strict liability. The dissertation then analyses the relationship between this prescriptive dimension and the formalist position regarding strict liability. It concludes that formalisms mistake regarding strict liability can be traced back to its epistemological assumptions regarding immanent intelligibility and coherence.

Trata-se de dissertação de mestrado acadêmico cujo problema de pesquisa consiste na identificação de soluções e respectivos fundamentos jurídicos para a reparação do dano sofrido pelo genitor aparente que é indevidamente obrigado ao pagamento de alimentos, considerando tratar-se de verba irrepetível. Foi utilizado como método de abordagem o hipotético-dedutivo e como métodos de procedimento o monográfico e o histórico. O trabalho foi dividido em três capítulos. O primeiro capítulo foi destinado ao aprofundamento do estudo da obrigação alimentar, com abordagem da evolução histórica, características, classificações, pressupostos, presunção de paternidade, alimentos gravídicos e, por fim, a identificação do dano consubstanciado na constatação da imposição do dever alimentar a destinatário ilegítimo. O segundo capítulo propôs uma solução ideal, que consiste no dever de reparação do dano pelo genitor verdadeiro, analisando inicialmente a possibilidade de imputação de responsabilidade objetiva, mas concluindo, por fim, estar no enriquecimento sem causa o fundamento adequado. O terceiro capítulo apresentou soluções subsidiárias, para o caso de desconhecimento do genitor verdadeiro, buscando imputar o dever de reparação à genitora que age culposamente ao indicar o alimentante errado em juízo. Para tanto, quatro possíveis fundamentos foram cogitados: enriquecimento sem causa, abuso de direito e responsabilidades civis subjetiva e objetiva, concluindo-se que, em todos os casos, haverá responsabilidade objetiva da genitora guardiã ou gestante, embora ainda impositiva a irrepetibilidade quando presente a boa-fé da agente. / This is an academic master's thesis which research problem consists in the identification of solutions and respective legal grounds for the relief of the damage suffered by the apparent parent who is improperly required to pay for the child support, considering that it is an unrepeatable sum. It was used as method of approach the hypothetical-deductive one and as method of procedure the monographic and historical ones. The work was divided in three chapters. The first chapter aimed the deepening of the study of child support obligation, with an approach to historical evolution, characteristics, classifications, assumptions, presumption of paternity, child support during pregnancy, and, finally, the identification of the damage consubstantiated in the obligation of the imposition of paying the child support to an illegitimate child. The second chapter proposed a idealsolution, consisting of the obligation to repair the damage by the true parent, which initially examined the possibility of imputation of strict liability, but finally concluded that unjust enrichment was the appropriate basis. The third chapter presented subsidiary solutions, in the case of ignorance of the true parent, seeking to impute the duty of reparation to the mother who acts guilty by indicating the wrong parent in court. In order to do so, four possible reasons have been considered: unjust enrichment, abuse of rights and liability and strict liability, and it is concluded that in all cases there will be strict liability of the female custodian or pregnant mother, although still impositive the unrepeatable when present the good faith of the agent.

Este trabalho trata da relação entre a teoria formalista do direito elaborada por Ernest Weinrib e sua teoria de fundamentação da responsabilidade civil derivada do formalismo. O objetivo do trabalho é mostrar que, apesar de o formalismo apresentar uma formulação distintiva e inovadora de racionalidade jurídica, que enfatiza a relação entre forma e conteúdo do direito, o modelo de racionalidade jurídica do formalismo não fornece uma explicação adequada para algumas áreas do direito e, especificamente no caso da responsabilidade civil, da responsabilidade objetiva, que, nessa visão, é considerada um erro jurídico. O formalismo jurídico weinribiano é um projeto teórico ambicioso que a um só tempo procura rechaçar posições céticas como os estudos críticos do direito (critical legal studies) e posições instrumentalistas, especialmente a análise econômica do direito e o positivismo jurídico. Ele apresenta uma teoria geral que mostra o direito como um lócus de racionalidade moral imanente e um método, fundado na inteligibilidade imanente, para compreender essa racionalidade e ver o direito como um fenômeno autônomo em relação à política e a outras esferas de racionalidade. O método formalista permite a intelecção do direito como um fenômeno imanentemente coerente por meio da apreensão das estruturas organizadoras e justificadoras implícitas nos arranjos jurídicos, isto é, as formas da justiça corretiva e da justiça distributiva. Com base nisso, o formalismo sustenta que a forma imanente ao direito privado e, consequentemente, à responsabilidade civil é a justiça corretiva. Este trabalho reconstrói criticamente as principais teses que integram o formalismo e que são fundamentais para entender a rejeição à responsabilidade objetiva, considerada uma monstruosidade conceitual, com especial ênfase na premissa epistemológica formalista da inteligibilidade imanente como a melhor maneira de se compreender o direito e na premissa da coerência estrutural que os arranjos jurídicos devem apresentar. A tese discute o modo como o formalismo jurídico se insere no debate metodológico contemporâneo, definindo o formalismo jurídico como uma teoria de avaliação e justificação jurídica e, portanto, dotada de uma dimensão prescritiva, e apresentando o impacto dessa definição na postura que o formalismo assume em relação à responsabilidade objetiva. A tese ainda analisa a relação entre essa dimensão prescritiva e o posicionamento do formalismo em relação à responsabilidade objetiva, rotulando-a de erro jurídico, e conclui com uma discussão sobre as razões desse posicionamento que, argumentase, é equivocado , que se baseiam na assunção das premissas da inteligibilidade imanente e do critério de coerência estrita que marcam o método de conhecimento formalista. / This dissertation focuses on the relationship between juridical formalism as elaborated by Ernest Weinrib and his theory of the foundation of tort law. The dissertation argues that despite formalisms distinctive and innovative account of legal rationality that emphasizes the relationship between laws form and substance, this account does not provide an adequate explanation for specific areas of law. Particularly in the case of tort law it does not adequately explain strict liability, which is deemed a juridical error. Weinribs juridical formalism is an ambitious theoretical project that challenges: skeptical accounts of law, such as critical legal studies; instrumentalists account of law exemplified by economical analysis of law; and juridical positivism. Weinribs theory attempts to explain law as a locus of immanent moral rationality. The theory is based on a methodology that adopts the premise of immanent intelligibility as a way to comprehend this rationality. This approach allows the theorist to grasp law as a phenomenon autonomous from politics and other spheres of rationality. The formalist method allows the intelligibility of law as an immanently coherent phenomenon through the apprehension of the organizing and justifying structures implicit in juridical arrangements, i.e., the forms of corrective justice and distributive justice with which formalism argues that the immanent form of private law and, therefore, of tort law is corrective justice. This dissertation reconstructs critically the main theses that support formalism, which are essential to understanding its rejection of strict liability considered a conceptual monstrosity. This dissertation focuses on the formalist epistemological assumption of immanent intelligibility as the best way of comprehending law and on the premise of internal structural coherence that juridical arrangements should display. This thesis discusses the way in which juridical formalism can be located within the contemporary methodological debate, and defines formalism as an evaluative and justificatory juridical theory. As such, formalism encompasses a prescriptive dimension. This dissertation also identifies how the definition of formalism as a prescriptive theory impacts on its analysis of strict liability. The dissertation then analyses the relationship between this prescriptive dimension and the formalist position regarding strict liability. It concludes that formalisms mistake regarding strict liability can be traced back to its epistemological assumptions regarding immanent intelligibility and coherence.

Autorius pastebi, kad viena mažiausiai reglamentuotų deliktinės atsakomybės problemų, skyrium gyvenančio tėvo atsakomybės už nepilnamečio vaiko padarytą žalą problema. Būtent šis atvejis teisės aktuose reglamentuojamas mažai, jo taikymas problemiškas, kadangi bet koks sprendimas neišvengiamai gali būti pamatinių teisinės atsakomybės normų pažeidimu. Darbo tyrimui autorius iškelia šį tikslą ir uždavinius: Darbo objektas – skyrium gyvenančio ir neauginančio vaiko tėvo teisinės atsakomybės ribos. Hipotezė: Skyrium gyvenantis ir neauginantis vaiko tėvas neprivalo atsakyti už vaiko padarytą žalą.. Darbo tikslas- išanalizuoti skyrium gyvenančio ir vaiko neauginančio tėvo atsakomybės ribas. Uždaviniai: a)Išanalizuoti teisines doktrinas, reglamentuojančias tėvų atsakomybės ypatumus bendrosios teisės ir civilinės teisės sistemų valstybėse. b)Aptarti tėvo pareigą atlyginti vaiko padarytą žalą esant tėvo ir vaiko atskyrimo, tėvų valdžios apribojimo ir separacijos atvejams . c) Išanalizuoti teisės aktų nuostatas ,įtakojančias skyrium gyvenančio tėvo atsakomybę už nepilnamečio veiksmus. Aptardamas šią problemą, autorius analizuoja situaciją kitose šalyse .Bandoma nustatyti bendruosius dėsningumus bendrosios bei kontinentinės teisės sistemų valstybėse. Pastebima, kad bendrosios teisės sistemos valstybėse vienareikšmiškai galioja asmeninės atsakomybės principas. Tai yra tėvas kaltas tiek kiek jie tiesiogiai nusižengė ar prisidėjo prie to, kad žala būtų padaryta. Kontinentinės teisės... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Parental liability is one of the most problematical aspects of tort liability cases. In most lows in the world is written that both parents are liable for the damages made by their child. There is no information about individual liability of child’s father or mother. Especially this problem becomes important then parents live separately. Then we have a question is child’s father who does not live together with his child liable for the torts and minors made by his child. This problem becomes complicated when father did all he could to help his child to act legally. But on the other hand, if we presume that according these circumstances father is not liable, we can breach victims’ rights. Main rule of civil liability is damages compensation for the victim. This dilemma is important in our days because there is big number of juvenile crimes. Civil liability for juvenile crimes is taken by parents or institution which supervises the juvenile at the time when tort is made. Under these circumstances we need stronger regulation of subjects liability limits. The object of the work is liability limits of father who lives separately and does not take care about this child for the torts made by his child. Hypothesis: Father who lives separately and does not take care about this child is liable for the torts made by his child. Purpose of the work is to analyze the limits of liability of the father who lives separately and does not take care about his child. The following tasks are... [to full text]

This master’s final thesis is purposive to analyze the International compensatory system on the damage caused by oil pollution. There are discussed the stages of the formation of the current system identifying the concrete premises, which have determined the origin of each compensatory level and its obliged regulation. There is indicated that every tanker which is responsible under this system has to face strict liability. Specific attention has been paid to each separate element of this system and uncover characteristic features for it. After research concluded in the master’s final thesis there are defined that at this moment operate particular compensatory system which ensure the reimbursement for every damage caused by oil spill. Although this system has been prevailing for 40 years but it always had to face with financial difficulties which were impacted by more and more tankers incidents in the sea. Thereby, for the lean working of this system there must be implanted prevented measures which ensure much safer navigation at sea. Also there is discussed new third compensatory element which have started to operate since 2005 years but it still hasn’t happened any major tanker’s incident to test how this element can cope with financial burden in reality. In the master’s final thesis there talked over the first and the second compensatory elements and international compensatory funds which are recognized as intergovernmental organizations responsible for these compensatory... [to full text]

This paper analyzes from a constitutional perspective, applying the test of proportionality about limiting rights, the impediment to hiring those associated corporations, through individuals, with those legal persons which has imposed a sanction temporary or permanent disqualification from government contracts. From this framework of study, the author finds that the interference on freedom of contract is disproportionate because it violates the principle of causality and strict liability, by attributing to a third party (legal person linked) consequences for the actions made to it by a different legal entity. / El presente trabajo analiza desde una perspectiva constitucional, aplicando el test de proporcionalidad en la limitación de los derechos, el impedimento para la contratación de aquellas personas jurídicas vinculadas, a través personas naturales, con aquellas personas jurídicas a las cuales se las ha impuesto una sanción de inhabilitación temporal o definitiva para contratar con el Estado. A partir de dicho marco de estudio, la autora considera que la injerencia sobre la libertad de contratación es desproporcionada en razón a que vulnera el principio de causalidad y la responsabilidad objetiva, al atribuirle a un tercero (persona jurídica vinculada) las consecuencias por las acciones realizadas por una persona jurídica distinta a ella.

Trata-se de dissertação de mestrado acadêmico cujo problema de pesquisa consiste na identificação de soluções e respectivos fundamentos jurídicos para a reparação do dano sofrido pelo genitor aparente que é indevidamente obrigado ao pagamento de alimentos, considerando tratar-se de verba irrepetível. Foi utilizado como método de abordagem o hipotético-dedutivo e como métodos de procedimento o monográfico e o histórico. O trabalho foi dividido em três capítulos. O primeiro capítulo foi destinado ao aprofundamento do estudo da obrigação alimentar, com abordagem da evolução histórica, características, classificações, pressupostos, presunção de paternidade, alimentos gravídicos e, por fim, a identificação do dano consubstanciado na constatação da imposição do dever alimentar a destinatário ilegítimo. O segundo capítulo propôs uma solução ideal, que consiste no dever de reparação do dano pelo genitor verdadeiro, analisando inicialmente a possibilidade de imputação de responsabilidade objetiva, mas concluindo, por fim, estar no enriquecimento sem causa o fundamento adequado. O terceiro capítulo apresentou soluções subsidiárias, para o caso de desconhecimento do genitor verdadeiro, buscando imputar o dever de reparação à genitora que age culposamente ao indicar o alimentante errado em juízo. Para tanto, quatro possíveis fundamentos foram cogitados: enriquecimento sem causa, abuso de direito e responsabilidades civis subjetiva e objetiva, concluindo-se que, em todos os casos, haverá responsabilidade objetiva da genitora guardiã ou gestante, embora ainda impositiva a irrepetibilidade quando presente a boa-fé da agente. / This is an academic master's thesis which research problem consists in the identification of solutions and respective legal grounds for the relief of the damage suffered by the apparent parent who is improperly required to pay for the child support, considering that it is an unrepeatable sum. It was used as method of approach the hypothetical-deductive one and as method of procedure the monographic and historical ones. The work was divided in three chapters. The first chapter aimed the deepening of the study of child support obligation, with an approach to historical evolution, characteristics, classifications, assumptions, presumption of paternity, child support during pregnancy, and, finally, the identification of the damage consubstantiated in the obligation of the imposition of paying the child support to an illegitimate child. The second chapter proposed a idealsolution, consisting of the obligation to repair the damage by the true parent, which initially examined the possibility of imputation of strict liability, but finally concluded that unjust enrichment was the appropriate basis. The third chapter presented subsidiary solutions, in the case of ignorance of the true parent, seeking to impute the duty of reparation to the mother who acts guilty by indicating the wrong parent in court. In order to do so, four possible reasons have been considered: unjust enrichment, abuse of rights and liability and strict liability, and it is concluded that in all cases there will be strict liability of the female custodian or pregnant mother, although still impositive the unrepeatable when present the good faith of the agent.