This document contains workings, explanations and solutions to the LPL4802 Portfolio (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024. For assistance whats-app us on 0.6.8..8.1.2..0.9.3.4... QUESTION 1 (ESSAY)
NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS AND DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS (4 pages, including rubr...
, QUESTION 1 (ESSAY) NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-
PATRIMONIAL LOSS AND DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS
1.1.
To succeed in a claim for emotional shock, or psychiatric injury, under South
African law, certain elements must be proven by the plaintiff. These elements
are closely linked to the general principles of delictual liability and have been
shaped by both common law and judicial precedent. A delict is a civil wrong
that results in harm or loss, and to claim successfully, all five elements of a
delict must be present: conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and harm or
loss. In the context of emotional shock, these elements are particularly
scrutinized. Below is a discussion of what the plaintiff must prove to succeed
in such a claim, with reference to the case of Komape and Others v Minister of
Basic Education and Others [2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA)] and other relevant
authorities.
1. Conduct
The first requirement is the defendant’s conduct. This refers to any act or
omission by the defendant that causes the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In
cases of emotional shock, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s
conduct was the cause of their emotional distress. This can occur when the
plaintiff witnesses or hears of a distressing event, such as the death or injury
of a close relative. In the Komape case, the plaintiffs witnessed the aftermath
of their son’s tragic death when he drowned in a pit latrine at school. The
school's and government authorities' failure to ensure proper and safe
sanitation facilities amounted to the harmful conduct leading to the emotional
shock suffered by the plaintiffs(Reported case law).
2. Wrongfulness
Wrongfulness in delict refers to the breach of a legal duty not to cause harm.
In cases of emotional shock, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s
conduct was wrongful, i.e., that the conduct was unreasonable and violated a
duty of care. The duty of care is often determined by the foreseeability of
harm. In the Komape case, the court had to consider whether the school
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 StudyShack. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.78. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
