THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS EXCELLENT REFRENCED ANSWERS FOR FOR LAW OF DAMAGAES EXAMINATION FOR OCTOBER DUE ON 30 OCTOBER 2024. ALL RULES AND THE TWO PRESCRIBED MATERIALS BEING THE TEXT BOOK AND GIVEN COURT CASE USED.
LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO 2024 / Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations
LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
All for this textbook (66)
Written for
University of South Africa (Unisa)
LAW OF DAMAGES (LPL4802)
All documents for this subject (80)
1
review
By: molebogeng2001 • 3 weeks ago
By: koketsosilas • 3 weeks ago
Thanks for being honest about excellence of my work. I really appreciate your review friend.
Seller
Follow
koketsosilas
Reviews received
Content preview
LAW OF DAMAGES FINAL PORTFOLIO
EXAMINATION 2024 SEMESTER 2
THIS ANSWERS ARE 100% EXCELLENT BASED STRICTLY ON PRESCRIBED
STUDY MATERIALS FOR THIS EXAM. TO WIT:
1. Visser PJ and Potgieter JM, Law of Damages (3rd edn, Cape Town: Juta
2012)
2. Komape and Others V Minister of Basic Education and Others 2020 (2)
SA 347 (SCA)
RULES OF REFERENCING ARE STRICLY FOLLOWED IN TERMS OF OSCOLA
RULES OF LAW REFERENCING!!!!!
NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
STUDENT XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NUMBER:
MODULE CODE: LPL4802 (Law of Damages)
SIGNATURE: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DATE: 30 OCTOBER 2024
,QUESTION 1 (ESSAY)
NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS AND DAMAGES
FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS
The case of Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education and Others 2020 (2)
SA 347 (SCA) dealt with claims for damages arising from the tragic death of 5-year-
old Michael Komape, who drowned after falling into a pit toilet at his school. This
essay will discuss what a plaintiff needs to prove to succeed in a claim for shock as
non-patrimonial loss, and critically analyze the court's reasons for rejecting the claim
for constitutional damages.
To succeed in a claim for shock as non-patrimonial loss, the plaintiff must prove that
they suffered a detectable psychiatric injury as a result of the defendant's wrongful
and negligent conduct.1 Mere emotional distress or hurt feelings are not sufficient -
there must be a recognizable psychiatric illness diagnosed by medical experts. 2
In the Komape case, the court confirmed that liability for shock requires proof of "a
detectable psychiatric injury".3 The plaintiffs had to show they suffered from
conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, not just normal grief or
sadness. This aligns with the approach in other common law jurisdictions that
damages for "nervous shock" are only recoverable where there is "either a physical
consequence or some medically identifiable psychiatric illness or injury". 4
1
P J Visser and JM Potgieter, Law of Damages (3rd edn, Cape Town: Juta 2012) 107.
2
Visser and Potgieter, Law of Damages 108.
3
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) [31].
4
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) [30].
, Importantly, the psychiatric injury must have been caused by the defendant's
wrongful conduct. There must be a causal link between the defendant's negligence
and the plaintiff's psychiatric harm. 5 In Komape, the court accepted that the
education authorities' negligence in providing unsafe toilet facilities had caused the
plaintiffs to suffer psychiatric injuries like PTSD and depression when they learned of
Michael's horrific death.6
The plaintiff does not necessarily have to have witnessed the traumatic incident
directly. The Komape judgment confirmed that South African law allows claims by
"hearsay" plaintiffs who suffer psychiatric injury after being told about harm to a loved
one, without having been present. 7 This is more flexible than the approach in some
other jurisdictions.
However, there must still be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the
traumatic event or its aftermath. The court will consider factors like the relationship
between the plaintiff and the primary victim, the plaintiff's proximity to the incident in
time and space, and how the plaintiff learned of the event. 8 In Komape, the parents
and siblings who saw Michael's body or quickly learned of his death were found to
have sufficient proximity.9
The psychiatric injury must also have been reasonably foreseeable. The defendant
need not have foreseen the exact psychiatric condition, but should have reasonably
foreseen that their negligence could cause psychiatric harm to persons in the
plaintiff's position.10 Given the horrendous circumstances of Michael's death,
psychiatric harm to his family members was clearly foreseeable.
5
Visser and Potgieter, Law of Damages 109.
6
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) [52].
7
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) [26].
8
Visser and Potgieter, Law of Damages 110.
9
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) [12]-[14].
10
Visser and Potgieter, Law of Damages 111.
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 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 koketsosilas. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £9.46. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
