>
#compensation
,
#delictual-claim
,
#employment-law
,
#legal
,
#coida
,
#odimwa
>
Discuss whether an employee who has claimed compensation in terms of ODIMWA can also bring delictual claim against the employer. Your answer should refer to the effects of section 35 1 of COIDA ?
Anonymous
Feb 5
Discuss whether an employee who has claimed compensation in terms of ODIMWA can also bring delictual claim against the employer. Your answer should refer to the effects of section 35 1 of COIDA ?
1 view
1 view
1 answer
Sort By
ChatGPT
Feb 5
Section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) in South Africa states that if an employee is entitled to compensation under the Act, they cannot sue their employer for damages in respect of that injury or disease. This provision is commonly referred to as the "exclusive remedy" rule.
The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODIMWA) is a separate legislation that provides compensation for occupational diseases specifically related to mining and works. It operates in conjunction with COIDA, and the principles of the exclusive remedy rule also apply to ODIMWA.
Therefore, if an employee has claimed compensation under ODIMWA or COIDA for an occupational disease, they are generally barred from bringing a delictual claim against their employer for damages arising from the same injury or disease. The purpose of this rule is to provide a streamlined and efficient process for compensating employees for work-related injuries or diseases, without the need for lengthy and costly litigation.
However, there are certain exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule. Section 35(1) of COIDA allows an employee to bring a delictual claim against their employer if the injury or disease was caused by the employer's intentional or grossly negligent conduct. In such cases, the employee can opt to claim compensation under COIDA or ODIMWA, or pursue a delictual claim for damages.
It is important to note that the burden of proof lies with the employee to establish that the employer's conduct was intentional or grossly negligent. This can be a challenging task, as the courts generally require strong evidence to prove such claims.
In summary, while an employee who has claimed compensation under ODIMWA or COIDA is generally barred from bringing a delictual claim against their employer, they may have the option to pursue a delictual claim if they can prove that the employer's conduct was intentional or grossly negligent.
The Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODIMWA) is a separate legislation that provides compensation for occupational diseases specifically related to mining and works. It operates in conjunction with COIDA, and the principles of the exclusive remedy rule also apply to ODIMWA.
Therefore, if an employee has claimed compensation under ODIMWA or COIDA for an occupational disease, they are generally barred from bringing a delictual claim against their employer for damages arising from the same injury or disease. The purpose of this rule is to provide a streamlined and efficient process for compensating employees for work-related injuries or diseases, without the need for lengthy and costly litigation.
However, there are certain exceptions to the exclusive remedy rule. Section 35(1) of COIDA allows an employee to bring a delictual claim against their employer if the injury or disease was caused by the employer's intentional or grossly negligent conduct. In such cases, the employee can opt to claim compensation under COIDA or ODIMWA, or pursue a delictual claim for damages.
It is important to note that the burden of proof lies with the employee to establish that the employer's conduct was intentional or grossly negligent. This can be a challenging task, as the courts generally require strong evidence to prove such claims.
In summary, while an employee who has claimed compensation under ODIMWA or COIDA is generally barred from bringing a delictual claim against their employer, they may have the option to pursue a delictual claim if they can prove that the employer's conduct was intentional or grossly negligent.
0
