PVL3703
Assignment 3 SEMESTER 1 2024
Unique Number: 576663
DUE DATE: 23 April 2024
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
• Use this document as a guide for learning,
comparison and reference purpose,
• Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
• Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this
document, however the contents are provided “as
is” without any representations or warranties,
express or implied. The author assumes no
liability as a result of reliance and use of the
contents of this document. This document is to
be used for comparison, research and reference
purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or
by any means.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Question text
One of the attractions at Wonderland Zoo is a train ride that takes customers to and from
different locations at the zoo. Sipho, the technician in charge of inspecting and maintaining the
train, overlooks some signs that the train is no longer in sound condition. Avril goes for a ride on
the train. The operator of the train requests the persons boarding the train to fasten their safety
belts. However, Avril decides not to fasten her safety belt, because she wants to take good
selfie pictures during the ride. During the ride, the train breaks down and comes to an abrupt
standstill resulting in only Avril being thrown out of the train. Avril sustains a broken arm and is
hospitalised. After four days, Avril is discharged, but on her way out of the hospital, she slips
and falls as a result of some oily substance on the floor. Due to the fall, Avril sustains a broken
leg. Whether there was a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken leg, will
be determined with reference to:
a.
Direct consequences.
b.
Adequate causation.
c.
The flexible approach.
d.
The but for-test.
Clear my choice
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
, 0688120934
Question 1
One of the attractions at Wonderland Zoo is a train ride that takes customers to and from
different locations at the zoo. Sipho, the technician in charge of inspecting and maintaining the
train, overlooks some signs that the train is no longer in sound condition. Avril goes for a ride on
the train. The operator of the train requests the persons boarding the train to fasten their safety
belts. However, Avril decides not to fasten her safety belt, because she wants to take good
selfie pictures during the ride. During the ride, the train breaks down and comes to an abrupt
standstill resulting in only Avril being thrown out of the train. Avril sustains a broken arm and is
hospitalised. After four days, Avril is discharged, but on her way out of the hospital, she slips on
some oily substance on the floor and falls. Due to the fall, Avril sustains a broken leg. Select the
best option in respect of Avril’s broken arm:
a.
There is a factual as well as a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
b.
There is no causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
c.
There is only a factual causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
d.
There is only a legal causal link between Sipho’s conduct and Avril’s broken arm.
Clear my choice
Question 2
Which one of the following cases dealt explicitly with the sequence in which the elements of
delictual liability should be considered?
a.
_Kruger v Coetzee_ 1966 2 SA 428 (A).
b.
_Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (Women’s Legal Centre Trust, as amicus curiae)_
2003 1 SA 389 (SCA).
c.
_First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Duvenhage_ 2006 5 SA 319 (SCA).
d.
_S v Goliath_ 1972 3 SA 1 (A).
Clear my choice
Question 3
Disclaimer
Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is”
without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as
a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for
comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be
reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means.
