Week 2 true and false

Question 1

for a person to be subjected to AL for causing harm to another, it is necessary that he either intended to cause harm or was negligent

Answer 1

True

Question 2

In SA cases concerned with AL , the word “dolus” is sometimes used to refer to negligence whereas “culpa” is used to refer to intent

Answer 2

False

Question 3

For the purpose of AL , conduct was negligent if a reasonable person would not have performed it

Answer 3

False

Question 4

For the purposes of AL , the doing of X was negligent if a reasonable person in the position of the person who did x (1) would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that doing x in the manner y would cause harm to another and (2) for that reason would not have done x in the manner y ( that is would have done x in a manner other than Y)

Answer 4

False

Question 5

If a reasonable person in the position of a home owner who failed to fill in or cover a hole on her property would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that failing to fill or cover the hole would cause harm to another and for that reason would have filled in or covered the hole then the home owner’s failure to fill in or cover the hole was negligent for the purpose of AL.

Answer 5

True

Question 6

If a reasonable person in the position of a cyclist who rode along Sea Point Promenade at 60 Km/h on a Sunday Afternoon would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that riding along Sea point promenade at 60 km/h on a Sunday Afternoon would cause harm to a pedestrian and for that reason would have ridden more slowly, then it was negligent for the purposes of AL for the cyclist to have ridden along Sea Point promenade at 60 k/h on a Sunday afternoon but it was not necessarily negligent for the cyclist to have ridden along Sea pOint Promenade on a Sunday afternoon

Answer 6

True

Question 7

In Kruger v Coetzee the AD held that the defendant had not been negligent because a diligens paterfamilias ( reasonable person) in his position would not have foreseen the possibility of his horses straying through the open gate on to the main road and causing damage to motor cars which might collide with them

Answer 7

False

Question 8

In Kruger v Coetzee the AD held that the defendant was not negligent because although harm was foreseeable , the second leg of the negligence enquiry was not satisfied as the defendant had taken steps by complaining to the local council

Answer 8

True