Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
• Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this
document, however the contents are provided “as
is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. The author assumes no
liability as a result of reliance and use of the
contents of this document. This document is to
be used for comparison, research and reference
purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or
by any means.
, 0688120934
Preview
Which one of the following cases dealt with the doctrine of informed consent?
a.
_Roux v Hattingh_ 2012 6 SA 428 (SCA).
b.
_Castell v De Greef_ 1994 4 SA 408 (C).
c.
_Lee v Minister of Correctional Services_ 2013 2 SA 144 (CC).
d.
_Le Roux v Dey_ 2011 3 SA 274 (CC).
Clear my choice
On a misty night, Bill must walk through a neighbourhood in which several incidents of
armed robbery have recently taken place. Suddenly he sees the dim outline of a person
pointing a handgun in his direction. Bill quickly pulls out his own pistol and fires a shot. The
person falls to the ground and Bill rushes forward to disarm him. When he gets to the fallen
person, he sees that it is Jim who owns the corner shop nearby. It transpires that Jim has
not been pointing a firearm, as Bill thought, but was pointing a malfunctioning torch and
trying to switch it on. Jim is seriously wounded and needs treatment in hospital. Jim
institutes a delictual claim against Bill. Bill raises private defence as a ground of
justification. Apply the views of Neethling and Potgieter to this set of facts and select the
best option:
a.
Bill is relying on putative private defence and he may escape liability because of the
absence of fault.
b.
Bill’s prospects of succeeding with his reliance on private defence are good.
c.
Bill will be held delictually liable.
d.
Bill is relying on putative private defence and his conduct will be found to be lawful rather
than wrongful.
Clear my choice
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Melindatutor. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.73. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.