Court Cases Flashcards
What is the ‘Leon-Cachet v De Jager’ case?
Person paid for production, not service, deemed an independent contractor.
What is the ‘Borchards v Pearce & Sheward’ case?
Employee surrenders capacity to work; independent contractor produces a given result.
Other factors considered by the Court in deciding that he was an independent contractor included the following: he earned commission only; he was remunerated only when he produced results; he was not registered as an employee with the Department of Labour; no deductions for tax purposes had been made; the control exercised over him was minimal; he could take leave whenever he wanted; and he received no leave or sick leave pay.
What is the ‘“Kylie” v CCMA & Others’ case?
Labour Appeal Court ruled that even illegal workers are entitled to certain protections under the Constitution and LRA
If the purpose of the LRA is to achieve these goals (social justice, fairness and respect), courts must safeguard those employees who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because they are economically and socially weaker than their employers. Many sex workers in this country are particularly vulnerable and are exposed to exploitation and abuse
What is the ‘Discovery Health Ltd v CCMA & Others’ case?
It is not only sex workers who enjoy legislative protection; illegal immigrants do too.
What is the ‘Hendrickz v Cutting’ case?
In Hendrickz v Cutting 1937 CPD 417 the employee was a lorry driver. While performing his duties, he stopped at a filling station for fuel. He lit a cigarette, causing a fire in which the pump attendant was injured. The employer was held liable
What is the ‘Minister of Justice v Khoza’ case?
In Minister of Justice v Khoza 1966 (1) SA 410 (A) two police constables were going about their work, inter alia, guarding prisoners. One of the constables aimed a pistol at the other in jest. The pistol went off accidently and the second constable was injured. The employer was held liable.
What is the ‘Sauer NO v Duursema’ case?
In Sauer NO v Duursema 1951 (2) SA 222 (D) a postman was driving a vehicle belonging to the post office without the necessary authority. As a result of his negligence an accident occurred and another vehicle was damaged. The employer was held liable because the trip undertaken was connected with the delivery of mail – the work for which the postman had been employed
What is the ‘K v Minister of Safety and Security’ case?
In K v Minister of Safety and Security [2005] 8 BLLR 749 (CC) three policemen in full uniform, on duty and driving an official South African Police Service vehicle offered a woman a lift home. On the way they stopped, raped her and left her at the roadside. The Court held that the employer was liable for the damages suffered by the woman.
What is the ‘Mkize v Martens’ case?
In Mkize v Martens 1914 AD 382 the employer supplied his two employees with food. The employees made a fire to cook the food. The fire caused damage to a third party. The court decided that the making of the fire was essential for the execution by the employees of their duties and the employer was held liable.
What is the ‘General Tyre & Rubber Co v Kleynhans’ case?
In General Tyre & Rubber Co (SA) Ltd v Kleynhans & Another 1963 (1) SA 533 (N) the employee drove a tractor on a public road, contrary to the orders of his employer. As a result of his negligence an accident occurred. The employer was held liable for the damages caused to a third party
What is the ‘Moghamat v Centre Guards CC’ case?
In Moghamat v Centre Guards CC [2004] 1 All SA 221 (C) the employee, a security guard, was not allowed to carry a firearm while on duty. One night, while on duty, he had his personal firearm in his possession and failed to put to it away. M was accidentally shot and suffered severe injuries. The Court concluded that the security guard had been negligent and, because he was on duty when the delict was committed, his employer was liable
What is the ‘Feldman v Mall’ case?
In Feldman v Mall 1945 AD 743 the employee had to deliver goods and then immediately return to his place of work. On the way back he deviated from the route to partake of drink with his friends. Later, on his way back to his workplace, he knocked down and killed a pedestrian. The Court decided that he had abandoned his work only partially to promote his own interests. He was, however, still promoting the interests of the employer because he had retained control of the vehicle and was taking it back to work. The employer was held liable.
What is the ‘Rossouw v Central News Agency’ case?
In Rossouw v Central News Agency 1948 (2) SA 267 (W) the employee gave a lift to a hitch-hiker. As a result of the employee’s negligence the hitch-hiker was injured. The Court decided that the giving of a lift had nothing to do with the work of the employee. The employer was not held liable
What is the ‘Carter & Co (Pty) Ltd v McDonald’ case?
In Carter & Co (Pty) Ltd v McDonald 1955 (1) SA 202 (A) the employee used his employer’s bicycle to go to the market for private reasons. He knocked down and injured a pedestrian. The Court found that the employee was promoting his own interests when the accident occurred. The employer was not held liable.
What is the ‘Absa Bank Ltd v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd’ case?
In Absa Bank Ltd v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd [2001] 1 All SA 1 (A) the Court held that the theft of cheques by an employee from his employer cannot be said to be an act carried out in the course and scope of employment. Theft is committed solely for an employee’s own interest and, therefore, falls outside the scope of his authority and employment. The employer cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of such a delinquent employee.
