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
Question text
One of the attractions at Wonderland Zoo is a train ride that takes customers to and from
different locations at the zoo. Sipho, the technician in charge of inspecting and maintaining the
train, overlooks some signs that the train is no longer in sound condition. Avril goes for a ride on
the train. The operator of the train requests the persons boarding the train to fasten their safety
belts. However, Avril decides not to fasten her safety belt, because she wants to take good
selfie pictures during the ride. During the ride, the train breaks down and comes to an abrupt
standstill resulting in only Avril being thrown out of the train. Avril sustains a broken arm and is
hospitalised. After four days, Avril is discharged, but on her way out of the hospital, she slips
and falls as a result of some oily substance on the floor. Due to the fall, Avril sustains a broken
leg. Whether there was a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken leg, will
be determined with reference to:
a.
Direct consequences.
b.
Adequate causation.
c.
The flexible approach.
d.
The but for-test.
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.
, 0688120934
Question 1
One of the attractions at Wonderland Zoo is a train ride that takes customers to and from
different locations at the zoo. Sipho, the technician in charge of inspecting and maintaining the
train, overlooks some signs that the train is no longer in sound condition. Avril goes for a ride on
the train. The operator of the train requests the persons boarding the train to fasten their safety
belts. However, Avril decides not to fasten her safety belt, because she wants to take good
selfie pictures during the ride. During the ride, the train breaks down and comes to an abrupt
standstill resulting in only Avril being thrown out of the train. Avril sustains a broken arm and is
hospitalised. After four days, Avril is discharged, but on her way out of the hospital, she slips on
some oily substance on the floor and falls. Due to the fall, Avril sustains a broken leg. Select the
best option in respect of Avril’s broken arm:
a.
There is a factual as well as a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
b.
There is no causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
c.
There is only a factual causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
d.
There is only a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
Clear my choice
Question 2
Which one of the following cases dealt explicitly with the sequence in which the elements of
delictual liability should be considered?
a.
_Kruger v Coetzee_ 1966 2 SA 428 (A).
b.
_Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (Women’s Legal Centre Trust, as amicus curiae)_
2003 1 SA 389 (SCA).
c.
_First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Duvenhage_ 2006 5 SA 319 (SCA).
d.
_S v Goliath_ 1972 3 SA 1 (A).
Clear my choice
Question 3
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 $2.84. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.