Class notes
Term 1 Lecture notes International Law
- Course
- Law of Delict
- Institution
- University Of Cape Town (UCT)
Lecture notes for the first term of International Law. Includes important concepts and cases
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Seller
Follow
Content preview
TERM 1 NOTES FOR FAGAN’S SECTION OF DELICTTopic 1: Fault- negligence
Topic 2: Fault- intention
Topic 3: Wrongfulness- wrongfulness of negligent harm-causing conduct
Topic 4: Wrongfulness- wrongfulness of intentional harm-causing conduct
Topic 5: Causation and remoteness
1
, fault: negligence
Readings: Aquilian Liability in the South African Law of Delict pg. 1-101
1. INTRODUCTION
- Conduct was negligent if and only if a reasonable person in the position of the person who
performed it:
1) Would have foreseen the possibility of it causing harm to another and;
2) For that reason would not have performed it
SAME theory goes for: (i) Failure to do x
(ii) doing of x in manner y
(iii) doing of x
2. KRUGER V COETZEE: TEST FOR NEGLIGENCE
- AD judgment 50 years ago, used by both courts and delict scholars, provided an
authoritative statement of the test for negligence in SA law of delict
- Kruger v Coetzee test for negligence:
‘For purposes of liability culpa arises if-
(a) a diligens paterfamilias (reasonable person) in the position of the defendants-
i. would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in
his person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
ii. would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrences; and
(b) the defendant failed to take such steps’
- In Sea Harvest Corporation v Duncan Dock Cold Storage:
o The SCA expressly approving the ideas-
1. Kruger v Coetzee test is NOT binding
2. Kruger v Coetzee test has only presumptive force
-the court expressly states that it is the 2 conditions set by the test…,
which provide the ultimate criterion for determining negligence
o Scott JA: conduct falling short of the standard that a reasonable person (a diligens
paterfamilias) would have observed in similar circumstances
2
, - There are situations (exactly same conduct) in which 2 following questions= CONTRARY
ANSWERS
1 Did the conduct fall short of the standard which a reasonable person would have
observed in the same circumstances?
2 Would a reasonable person have foreseen a reasonable possibility that the conduct
would cause harm to another and for that reason have refrained from performing it?
- It is of practical importance to know how the reasonable person is characterised
- There are several judgements of the Appellate Division, over 100 years, where a reasonable
person= ordinary average person
- The test in Kruger v Coetzee, it is a NECESSARY condition for conduct to be negligent that-
1. A reasonable person would have foreseen a reasonable possibility that it would
cause harm to another
2. A reasonable person would have refrained from performing the conduct
- Mkhatswa v Minister of Defence:
o For negligence, our law requires the reasonable foreseeability of a reasonable
possibility of harm (likelihood of harm or danger)
3. CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE
Factors/considerations for reasonable person refraining from performing harm-causing conduct
- Herschel v Mrupe:
o Schreiner JA: identified 3 considerations/factors for the determination of a
reasonable person refraining from performing harm-causing conduct
1. SERIOUSNESS of the harm
2. CHANCE of occurrence
3. COST/DIFFICULTY of taking precautions
- The SA delict scholar JC van der Walt identified 4 considerations/factors:
1. DEGREE/EXTENT of harm caused by the conduct
2. GRAVITY of POSSIBLE CONSEQUNCES of that harm
3. UTILITY of the conduct
4. BURDEN of ELIMINATING RISK
*(1+2= general magnitude of the risk created by the conduct)
3
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 amypekeur. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R150,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53340 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now