Table of contents
|
11.1. |
Introduction |
11.2. |
Fragmented statutory framework |
11.3. |
Overview |
11.4. |
Employee protection and employer interests |
11.5. |
International standards |
11.6. |
Policy initiatives |
11.7. |
Preventative measures |
11.8. |
Re-integration |
11.9. |
Benefits |
11.10. |
Exclusionary nature |
11.11. |
Commuting injuries |
11.12. |
Defining accidents and diseases |
11.13. |
Access and detection |
11.14. |
Employees suing employers civilly? |
11.15. |
Cost and funding of scheme |
11.16. |
Administration, review and appeal |
11.17. |
A long-term view: An integrated accident compensation system? |
11.18. |
Conclusion |
11.19. |
The road accident (fund) insurance and social security |
|
11.19.1. |
Introduction |
|
11.19.2. |
MVA/RAF: The nature of the social security system |
|
11.19.3. |
The South African experience |
11.20. |
Damages payable in terms of the RAF act |
|
11.20.1. |
Introduction |
|
11.20.2. |
The purpose of compensation |
|
11.20.3. |
The term “damages” |
|
11.20.4. |
The Basic Principles of Delictual Compensation |
11.21. |
Procedural requirements |
|
11.21.1. |
Substantial compliance |
|
11.21.2. |
Structure of the RAF |
|
11.21.3. |
Repudiation of a claim |
11.22. |
Financing |
11.23. |
Other relevant legislation |
|
11.23.1. |
Apportionment of Damages Act, 1956 |
|
11.23.2. |
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 |
11.24. |
The white paper on the road accident fund: Important features |
|
11.24.1. |
Introduction |
|
11.24.2. |
Benefits, not compensation |
|
11.24.3. |
Coverage |
|
11.24.4. |
Prescription |
11.25. |
Shortcomings in the current system |
11.26. |
Some reflection on medical expenses |
11.27. |
Prevention and rehabilitation |
11.28. |
Adjudication mechanisms |
11.29. |
The right to claim civilly from the wrongdoer |
11.30. |
A single system for COIDA and RAF? |
|
REFERENCES - 17Kb < 1min (2 pages) |
|
ENDNOTES - 27Kb < 1min (4 pages) |
|
Introduction
The introduction of insurance schemes for occupational injuries and diseases is a response to the peculiar nature of the problem of work-related accidents and diseases. The common law, which premises liability on the principle of fault, is ineffective in the said circumstances. Therefore, a particular form of liability (delictual in casu) for any civil compensation claim against the employer is replaced by insurance coverage. It is thus correct to view this responsibility of the employer to compensate as a case of “strict liability”. Employees make their labour potential available to the employer (who benefits from the economic process). Also, at common law employers bear the responsibility of providing safe and healthy working conditions. It follows that the responsibility for financing the insurance scheme is the employer’s.
|
[Table of contents] |