Chap 4-fault Flashcards
S v goosen
- intent
- material deviation from causal nexus
- no intent in this case
S v sigwahla
Intent ito dolus eventualis
Neg- objective
Inetnt- subjective
Kruger v coetzee!!!
- negligence
- -> practical application of test for negligence
- concrete application of negligence
- -> general nature of harm and general nature of damage in particular circumst
Jones v santam
Negligence in children
1. Rp test 2. Are they culpa capax
Weber v santam
Negligence and children
Must determine if child had sufficient mental ability
Eskom holdings v hendricks
Contributory negligence of children Sufficient emotional and int ellectual maturity to 1. Aknowledge harm 2. Know how to avoid harm 3. Control impulses
Van wyk v lewis
Negligence and reasonable expert
General level of skill and diligence possessed and exercised at relevant time
Durr v ABSA
Negligence and the reasonable expert
Court decides what is reasonable under circumstance
Expert not the average practitioner
Hershel v marupe
Abstract approach to negligence
Harm in general must be reasonably forseeable
Botes v van deventer
Abstract approach to negligence
Precise manner in which it was caused not foseeable but general nature of harm is
Sea harvest corp case
Abstract approach to negligence
General manner in which it was caused
Ablort-morgan v whyte bank farms
Concrete approach to negligence
Should wrongdoer have reasonably foreseen the SPECIFIC consequence
Wasserman v union government
Factors of preventability
Nature and risk inherent in wrongdoers conduct
Slight risk of harm –> preventability may not be necessary
Lamagundi sheetmetal and engineering v basson
Factors of preventability
Seriousness of risk materializing
Khupa v SA transport services
Factors of preventability
Seriousness of risk materialising
Train
