{"title":"儿童保育中心受伤的实际责任","authors":"L. Boonzaier","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2116596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Constitutional Court has recently given an important judgment about the delictual liability of the state for injuries sustained by a child at an early childhood development (ECD) centre: BE obo JE v MEC for Social Development, Western Cape. The Court substantially confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the same matter. Both judgments built upon the preceding SCA judgment in Government of the Western Cape: Department of Social Development v CB, which, like BE, involved a tragic accident at an ECD centre. With the appearance of these judgments, it is a good time to assess our courts’ willingness to provide delictual remedies for injuries suffered at childcare centres, and to consider the status of South African public authority liability in general. I explain that the omissions liability of public authorities for negligently caused bodily injury has expanded significantly since 2002. The High Court judgments in BE and CB, which imposed liability on the Department of Social Development, were consistent with this. But the appellate judgments may suggest a retreat from our law’s expansionary approach. I discuss the reasons of policy and principle why such a retreat might be welcome, both for organs of state and the legal system as a whole. I also consider the potential delictual liability of the ECD centres themselves, as well as local authorities, for incidents of the kind in BE and CB. Finally, I consider two hypothetical cases that help to illustrate potential future developments for public authority liability in South Africa.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"309 - 330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delictual liability for injuries suffered at childcare centres\",\"authors\":\"L. Boonzaier\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2022.2116596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Constitutional Court has recently given an important judgment about the delictual liability of the state for injuries sustained by a child at an early childhood development (ECD) centre: BE obo JE v MEC for Social Development, Western Cape. The Court substantially confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the same matter. Both judgments built upon the preceding SCA judgment in Government of the Western Cape: Department of Social Development v CB, which, like BE, involved a tragic accident at an ECD centre. With the appearance of these judgments, it is a good time to assess our courts’ willingness to provide delictual remedies for injuries suffered at childcare centres, and to consider the status of South African public authority liability in general. I explain that the omissions liability of public authorities for negligently caused bodily injury has expanded significantly since 2002. The High Court judgments in BE and CB, which imposed liability on the Department of Social Development, were consistent with this. But the appellate judgments may suggest a retreat from our law’s expansionary approach. I discuss the reasons of policy and principle why such a retreat might be welcome, both for organs of state and the legal system as a whole. I also consider the potential delictual liability of the ECD centres themselves, as well as local authorities, for incidents of the kind in BE and CB. Finally, I consider two hypothetical cases that help to illustrate potential future developments for public authority liability in South Africa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"309 - 330\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2116596\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2116596","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要宪法法院最近就国家对儿童在幼儿发展中心遭受伤害的违法责任作出了一项重要判决:BE obo JE v MEC for Social development,West Cape。最高法院实质上确认了最高上诉法院对同一事项的判决。这两项判决都建立在西开普省政府先前SCA判决的基础上:社会发展部诉CB,与BE一样,该判决涉及ECD中心的一起悲剧事故。随着这些判决的出现,现在是评估我们的法院是否愿意为在儿童保育中心遭受的伤害提供不法补救的好时机,并考虑南非公共当局责任的总体状况。我解释说,自2002年以来,公共当局对过失造成人身伤害的不作为责任大幅扩大。高等法院对BE和CB的判决将责任强加给了社会发展部,与此一致。但上诉判决可能意味着我们将放弃法律的扩张性做法。我讨论了为什么这样的撤退可能受到欢迎的政策和原则原因,无论是对国家机关还是整个法律体系来说。我还考虑了幼儿发展中心本身以及地方当局对BE和CB此类事件的潜在违法责任。最后,我考虑了两个假设案例,这两个案例有助于说明南非公共当局责任未来的潜在发展。
Delictual liability for injuries suffered at childcare centres
Abstract The Constitutional Court has recently given an important judgment about the delictual liability of the state for injuries sustained by a child at an early childhood development (ECD) centre: BE obo JE v MEC for Social Development, Western Cape. The Court substantially confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the same matter. Both judgments built upon the preceding SCA judgment in Government of the Western Cape: Department of Social Development v CB, which, like BE, involved a tragic accident at an ECD centre. With the appearance of these judgments, it is a good time to assess our courts’ willingness to provide delictual remedies for injuries suffered at childcare centres, and to consider the status of South African public authority liability in general. I explain that the omissions liability of public authorities for negligently caused bodily injury has expanded significantly since 2002. The High Court judgments in BE and CB, which imposed liability on the Department of Social Development, were consistent with this. But the appellate judgments may suggest a retreat from our law’s expansionary approach. I discuss the reasons of policy and principle why such a retreat might be welcome, both for organs of state and the legal system as a whole. I also consider the potential delictual liability of the ECD centres themselves, as well as local authorities, for incidents of the kind in BE and CB. Finally, I consider two hypothetical cases that help to illustrate potential future developments for public authority liability in South Africa.