Exam (elaborations)
LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Content preview
,LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO(COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30
October 2024; 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted
solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1 (ESSAY) NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-
PATRIMONIAL LOSS AND DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS (4
pages, including rubric) PLEASE NOTE: You must present your
answer in the form of an essay. Its marking rubric is attached
with this examination paper. Study the case Komape and others
v Minister of Basic Education and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA)
a copy of it is attached here and answer the questions below.
N.B.: The question below must be answered in the form of an
essay. At the end of your essay, attach the rubric that was
supplied to you along with your exam answer script. 1.1 Discuss
what the plaintiff needs to prove to be successful in a claim for
shock (psychiatric injury) as a head of damage for non-
patrimonial loss. Refer to relevant authority in your answer. (15)
1.2 Critically analyse the reasons (advanced by the court) why
Constitutional damages, claimed in addition to common law
damages, must at present necessarily fail. (10) TOTAL MARKS
FOR THIS QUESTION: [25] 3
To write a comprehensive essay on the nature and assessment
of non-patrimonial loss and damages for patrimonial loss,
focusing on the case Komape and Others v Minister of Basic
Education and Others (2020), follow the structured approach
,outlined below. This includes an introduction, sections
addressing both questions, and a conclusion.
Title: The Nature and Assessment of Non-Patrimonial and
Patrimonial Loss: An Analysis of Komape v Minister of Basic
Education
Introduction
The distinction between patrimonial and non-patrimonial loss is
pivotal in South African delictual law, particularly when
evaluating claims for damages. The case of Komape and Others
v Minister of Basic Education and Others serves as a significant
reference point in understanding the complexities of non-
patrimonial claims, specifically regarding shock or psychiatric
injury. This essay will first examine the requirements for a
successful claim for psychiatric injury under non-patrimonial
loss and then critically analyze the court's reasoning regarding
the rejection of constitutional damages alongside common law
damages.
1.1 Proving a Claim for Shock (Psychiatric Injury) as Non-
Patrimonial Loss
To succeed in a claim for shock or psychiatric injury as a head of
non-patrimonial damage, the plaintiff must establish several key
elements. First and foremost, it is essential to demonstrate the
existence of a recognizable psychiatric injury. The courts have
, generally required evidence of a diagnosed psychiatric
condition resulting from a traumatic event caused by the
defendant's negligent conduct.
The legal precedent in Southern Africa v Minister of Police
(1976) provides a foundational basis, emphasizing that the
injury must be serious and not trivial. In this case, the plaintiff
must show that the shock experienced was not merely transient
but had lasting effects, impacting their mental well-being.
Further, the plaintiff must establish a causal link between the
defendant's wrongful conduct and the psychiatric injury
sustained. This requires expert testimony, typically from
psychologists or psychiatrists, to confirm that the plaintiff’s
psychological condition is a direct result of the incident in
question. This principle was reiterated in the case of Minister of
Safety and Security v van Duivenboden (2002), where the
court highlighted the necessity of establishing a direct
causation.
The plaintiff must also demonstrate that they were in a close
relationship with the primary victim, as courts have often
limited claims for shock to those who are closely connected to
the injured party. In Mogane v Minister of Police (1995), it was
established that bystanders who directly witness an incident
may claim for psychiatric injuries, provided they can show that
the experience was shocking and that their mental state was
significantly affected.
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 THEBLAZE1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R47,87. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53022 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now