UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
Occupational Health and Safety Law
Assignment 1 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: OHS2601
Module Name: Occupational Health and Safety Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 19 August 2026
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Occupational Health
and Safety Law at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | OHS2601 Assignment 1 — Semester 2 2026
Question 1: Explosion Involving Pressurised Gas Cylinders
An explosion caused by pressurised gas cylinders that kills two employees and seriously in-
jures six others triggers both the statutory investigative machinery of the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 85 of 19931 and the common-law law of delict, which govern, respectively, how
the incident is officially investigated and how a bereaved family may recover damages from
the employer.
1.1 Investigation Procedures Following Death and Serious Injury
Briefly explain the investigation procedures that an occupational health and safety inspector may
follow after an incident that resulted in death and serious injury.
The employer must report the explosion to the Department of Employment and Labour with-
out delay, and the scene may not be disturbed except to render assistance, prevent a further
occurrence, or remove the deceased, until an inspector has consented to its release.2 On
arrival, the inspector exercises the special powers conferred by section 30, which include en-
tering the premises without prior notice, questioning any person believed to have knowledge
of the incident, inspecting and copying documents such as pressure-vessel certificates and
maintenance records, and seizing or sampling any article connected to the occurrence, here
the ruptured cylinder and its fittings.3 The inspector then conducts an investigation under
section 31 to establish the circumstances of the explosion and to decide whether a formal
inquiry is warranted, taking statements from surviving employees and assessing whether
the employer complied with the general duty in section 8 to maintain a working environment
that is safe and without risk to health.4 A written report, together with all statements and
documents gathered, is then submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief
inspector.5 Where two fatalities have resulted, the chief inspector will ordinarily convene a
formal inquiry under section 32, presided over by a specially designated inspector with the
power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence under oath.6
1
Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA).
2
OHSA (n 1) s 24; s 31(4).
3
ibid s 30.
4
ibid s 31(1); s 8.
5
ibid s 31(2).
6
ibid s 32.
Page 1 of 16
, UNISA | OHS2601 Assignment 1 — Semester 2 2026
Explosion occurs
Employer reports
incident; scene pre-
served (s 24, s 31(4))
Inspector exercises spe-
cial powers: entry, ques-
tioning, seizure (s 30)
Inspector investigates
circumstances (s 31)
Formal in- Yes Formal inquiry
quiry needed? held (s 32)
No
Report to DPP and
chief inspector (s 31(2))
Figure 1: Investigation process followed by an OHS inspector after a fatal incident
1.2 Proving the Employer’s Negligence and Its Link to the Death
Assume that the family of one of the deceased employees brings a claim for damages against the
employer. Explain what must be proved regarding the employer’s negligence and the link between
that negligence and the employee’s death.
To succeed, the family must establish every element of a delict: wrongful conduct, fault in
the form of negligence, causation, and patrimonial loss. Negligence is assessed objectively
according to the test formulated in Kruger v Coetzee: a reasonable employer in the defen-
dant’s position would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that working with pressurised
gas cylinders could injure employees, and would have taken reasonable steps, such as reg-
ular pressure testing, proper storage away from ignition sources, and adequate ventilation,
to guard against that risk; liability follows only once it is shown that the employer failed to
take those steps.7 The statutory duty in section 8 of the OHS Act to provide and maintain a
safe working environment gives content to what a reasonable employer would have done in
these circumstances.8 Once breach is shown, causation must still be proved in two stages.
7
Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) 430E–F.
8
OHSA (n 1) s 8.
Page 2 of 16
College of Law
⋄
Occupational Health and Safety Law
Assignment 1 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: OHS2601
Module Name: Occupational Health and Safety Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 1
Due Date: 19 August 2026
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Occupational Health
and Safety Law at the University of South Africa.
,UNISA | OHS2601 Assignment 1 — Semester 2 2026
Question 1: Explosion Involving Pressurised Gas Cylinders
An explosion caused by pressurised gas cylinders that kills two employees and seriously in-
jures six others triggers both the statutory investigative machinery of the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 85 of 19931 and the common-law law of delict, which govern, respectively, how
the incident is officially investigated and how a bereaved family may recover damages from
the employer.
1.1 Investigation Procedures Following Death and Serious Injury
Briefly explain the investigation procedures that an occupational health and safety inspector may
follow after an incident that resulted in death and serious injury.
The employer must report the explosion to the Department of Employment and Labour with-
out delay, and the scene may not be disturbed except to render assistance, prevent a further
occurrence, or remove the deceased, until an inspector has consented to its release.2 On
arrival, the inspector exercises the special powers conferred by section 30, which include en-
tering the premises without prior notice, questioning any person believed to have knowledge
of the incident, inspecting and copying documents such as pressure-vessel certificates and
maintenance records, and seizing or sampling any article connected to the occurrence, here
the ruptured cylinder and its fittings.3 The inspector then conducts an investigation under
section 31 to establish the circumstances of the explosion and to decide whether a formal
inquiry is warranted, taking statements from surviving employees and assessing whether
the employer complied with the general duty in section 8 to maintain a working environment
that is safe and without risk to health.4 A written report, together with all statements and
documents gathered, is then submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief
inspector.5 Where two fatalities have resulted, the chief inspector will ordinarily convene a
formal inquiry under section 32, presided over by a specially designated inspector with the
power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence under oath.6
1
Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA).
2
OHSA (n 1) s 24; s 31(4).
3
ibid s 30.
4
ibid s 31(1); s 8.
5
ibid s 31(2).
6
ibid s 32.
Page 1 of 16
, UNISA | OHS2601 Assignment 1 — Semester 2 2026
Explosion occurs
Employer reports
incident; scene pre-
served (s 24, s 31(4))
Inspector exercises spe-
cial powers: entry, ques-
tioning, seizure (s 30)
Inspector investigates
circumstances (s 31)
Formal in- Yes Formal inquiry
quiry needed? held (s 32)
No
Report to DPP and
chief inspector (s 31(2))
Figure 1: Investigation process followed by an OHS inspector after a fatal incident
1.2 Proving the Employer’s Negligence and Its Link to the Death
Assume that the family of one of the deceased employees brings a claim for damages against the
employer. Explain what must be proved regarding the employer’s negligence and the link between
that negligence and the employee’s death.
To succeed, the family must establish every element of a delict: wrongful conduct, fault in
the form of negligence, causation, and patrimonial loss. Negligence is assessed objectively
according to the test formulated in Kruger v Coetzee: a reasonable employer in the defen-
dant’s position would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that working with pressurised
gas cylinders could injure employees, and would have taken reasonable steps, such as reg-
ular pressure testing, proper storage away from ignition sources, and adequate ventilation,
to guard against that risk; liability follows only once it is shown that the employer failed to
take those steps.7 The statutory duty in section 8 of the OHS Act to provide and maintain a
safe working environment gives content to what a reasonable employer would have done in
these circumstances.8 Once breach is shown, causation must still be proved in two stages.
7
Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) 430E–F.
8
OHSA (n 1) s 8.
Page 2 of 16
