PVL1501 ASSIGNMENT 1&2 SEMESTER 1

PVL1501 ASSIGNMENT 1&2 SEMESTER 1 ASSIGNMENT 01 SOLUTIONS Question 1 Mr Groeneveld should not sue Ms Trischa de Ville in her personal capacity because we are told in the given set of facts that Ms Trisch de Ville committed these allegations not in her personal capacity as a natural person. The Applicant (Mr Groeneveld) may however sue Ms Trischa on the grounds of vicarious liability. Please note that the parties are referred to as the applicant and the respondent because a court a quo in this matter is the High Court unless credits been given directly to C.C and another reason is that, this case touch bases on the Fundamental Rights litigations, the Magistrate Courts are constrained to heir this matter in terms of Magistrates’ Act 32 of 1944. In the case of Damnum iniuria datum and Loureiro and others v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd, the applicants instituted action against the company and not against the security guard (a company is a juristic person with legal rights and duties). The guard was acting within his scope of employment and as an employee of the company (the respondent). Remember: a company is an abstract entity and cannot act without the assistance of human beings. When the employees of a company act in the course and scope of their employment, they could cause the company to be delictually liable. Therefore, in this regard, the respondent (Great Party) is liable for the conduct of it representative, Ms Trischa de Ville. This type of liability is known as vicarious liability. The respondent may argue that his conduct is justifiable and protected by section 58 of the Constitution which provides as follows: Parliament and its members enjoy parliamentary privilege so that they are able to perform their functions without outside hindrance or interference. Parliamentary privilege is based on the notion that MP’s need to be able to speak freely and uninhibitedly to be able to d