The potential delictual liability of non-vaccinating parents in South Africa

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Schoeman, Elsabe
dc.contributor.coadvisor Zitzke, Emile
dc.contributor.postgraduate Hager, Liesl
dc.date.accessioned 2023-07-27T10:05:16Z
dc.date.available 2023-07-27T10:05:16Z
dc.date.created 2023
dc.date.issued 2023
dc.description Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2023. en_US
dc.description.abstract This thesis explores the potential delictual liability of non-vaccinating parents in South Africa for the harm caused to another by failing to have their child vaccinated. The South African common-law delict is explored with specific reference to the five common-law delictual elements, as well as the three historic actions: the actio iniuriarum; the Germanic action for pain and suffering; and the actio legis Aquiliae. In Chapter 1, the reader is introduced to the research topic, and specifically the issue of non-vaccination, what it entails for purposes of this thesis, and why the non-vaccination of a child may potentially attract delictual liability. Chapter 2 explores non-vaccination in greater detail, including the importance of vaccination, a short overview of the history of non-vaccination, and why non-vaccination is still regarded as a global health threat. Non-vaccination is considered against a constitutional backdrop in Chapter 3 to establish whether children have an express or implied constitutional right to vaccination and whether or not parents have a corresponding duty to vaccinate their children. Chapter 3 also considers the common-law rights of parents as well as the role of the Children’s Act in the constitutional conundrum. Foreign-law considerations regarding the potential civil liability of non-vaccinating parents are considered in Chapter 4 with reference to foreign case law and legislation. The South African common-law delict is explored in Chapter 5 and each delictual element is considered in detail to establish whether non-vaccinating parents could possibly face delictual liability for the harm caused to others by their failure to have their child vaccinated. In Chapter 6 recommendations for statutory reform are made with reference to the consequences of imposing delictual liability and to assist litigants in a delictual suit. Chapter 7 concludes the thesis with a short summary of the chapters and concluding remarks. Keywords: non-vaccination; anti-vax; delictual liability; children’s rights; negligence; torts; duties; breach; best interests; common-law delict; wrongfulness; harm; conduct; causation; fault. en_US
dc.description.availability Unrestricted en_US
dc.description.degree LLD en_US
dc.description.department Private Law en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Skye Foundation en_US
dc.identifier.citation * en_US
dc.identifier.other S2023
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/91651
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher University of Pretoria
dc.rights © 2023 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.
dc.subject non-vaccination en_US
dc.subject delictual liability en_US
dc.subject children’s rights en_US
dc.subject negligence en_US
dc.subject torts en_US
dc.subject best interests en_US
dc.subject common-law delict en_US
dc.subject UCTD
dc.title The potential delictual liability of non-vaccinating parents in South Africa en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record