Exam (elaborations)
PVL3703 - Exam Revision Questions
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
PVL3703 - Exam Revision Questions
[Show more]
Content preview
PVL3703 - ExamRevision Questions
, lOMoARcPSD|8298725
CONTENTS
1 COMMENTARY ON ASSIGNMENTS ...................................................................................... 3
2 EXAMINATION AND ADMISSION TO THE EXAMINATION .................................................. 8
3 PREPARATION FOR EXAMINATION ..................................................................................... 9
2
Downloaded by m
, lOMoARcPSD|8298725
PVL3703/201
Dear Student
1 DISCUSSION OF ASSIGNMENTS
1.1 GENERAL
Assignment 01 (written assignment) and assignment 02 (multiple-choice assignment) equally
contributed to your semester mark. Submission of assignment 01 was a prerequisite for
admission to the examination in this module. However, no minimum mark for the assignment
was required for admission. Your semester mark will count 20% towards your final mark for
this module. This assignment required a structured written response to the question. The value
of this assignment lies mainly in using the discussion furnished to enhance your understanding
and knowledge of the work. Assignment 02 (multiple-choice assignment) was marked by
computer. You should use the commentary given to assignment 02 to identify the correct
alternatives for the different questions in the assignment.
1.2 ASSIGNMENT 01 (WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT)
COMMENTARY
ASSIGNMENT 01: PROBLEM TYPE QUESTION
UNIQUE NUMBER: 219194
ANSWER
Question
Differentiate between the two forms of causation. Also discuss briefly, with reference to the
latest decisions of the Appellate Division, the tests that must be employed to establish whether
the two forms of causation are present in a given set of facts.
Total for assignment 01: [10]
The establishment of causation involves a two-stage inquiry:
The first step involves establishing ‘factual’ causation (½). Factual causation is concerned with
the question whether; judging from the facts, a certain act of the defendant caused the harmful
result suffered by the plaintiff [1]. Because one act can be the factual cause of many different
results, a second inquiry is necessary to limit the defendant’s liability to only one or some of
these results. This second inquiry is known as legal causation (½), and here the courts apply
legal policy considerations rather than make a finding purely on the facts. [1]
3
Downloaded by m
, lOMoARcPSD|8298725
The test for factual causation is the conditio sine qua non test or ‘but for’ test. [1] This entails
mentally eliminating (or removing) the act (or conduct) and if the result
(consequence/harm/prejudice) also disappears, a factual causal link is present. Another way of
expressing this idea is to ask: But for the defendant’s act, would the plaintiff’s harm have
eventuated? [1 for any one of these two formulations] S v Mokgethi 1990 1 SA 32 (A),
International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 1 SA 680 (A) and the majority of cases
dealing with causation can be cited as authority for this test. The test is subject to much
criticism, inter alia that it involves circular reasoning and fails completely in cases of cumulative
causation. [1] Neethling and Potgieter argue that evidence is sufficient to determine whether
one fact flowed from another fact. [1]
The test for legal causation is the flexible approach as formulated in S v Mokgethi [1] and
subsequently applied in the Bentley [1] and other delict cases. According to this approach the
main question is whether the link between the act (or conduct) and the result
(consequence/harm/prejudice) is close enough, when judged in view of policy considerations of
reasonableness, fairness, and justice [1] for the to be result (consequence/harm/prejudice) to be
imputed to the defendant. [1] In other words, the wrongdoer should not be held liable for harm
which is too remote from the conduct. [1] According to the flexible approach, no single legal
causation theory can solve all possible causation problems, but the other theories may be used
as subsidiary aids. [1] Such theories include the adequate causation, direct consequences, and
foreseeability theories, as well as the principles relating to the so-called novus actus
interveniens, and the maxim that ‘you should take your victim as you find him’ (thin skull rule). [2
max]
[Maximum marks: (10)]
1.3 ASSIGNMENT 02 (MULTIPLE CHOICE ASSIGNMENT)
COMMENTARY
ASSIGNMENT 02: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
Unique assignment number: 202116
ANSWERS
Question 1
The delictual remedy used to claim damages for patrimonial loss caused wrongfully and
negligently is the:
1. actio legis Aquiliae
2. actio iniuriarum
3. action for pain and suffering
4. interdict
(1)
Patrimonial loss caused wrongfully and culpably is actionable with the Aquilian action.
The correct alternative is [1]. [see chap 1 par 4.2]
4
Downloaded by m
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 EFT, 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 this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller phennymapenzi. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R50,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79223 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now