,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
Nature and Assessment of Non-Patrimonial Loss and
Damages for Patrimonial Loss
, The case of Komape and Others v Minister of Basic Education
and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) highlights significant issues
surrounding non-patrimonial loss, particularly in claims related
to psychiatric injury and the limitations of constitutional
damages. This essay discusses the requirements for a plaintiff to
succeed in a claim for shock as a form of non-patrimonial loss,
along with a critical analysis of the court's reasoning regarding
the failure of constitutional damages claims.
1.1 Proving Shock (Psychiatric Injury) as Non-Patrimonial
Loss
To establish a successful claim for shock, or psychiatric injury,
as a non-patrimonial loss, the plaintiff must meet several critical
requirements. The primary elements include:
1.1.1 The Existence of a Recognizable Psychiatric Injury
The plaintiff must prove that they have sustained a recognizable
psychiatric injury. This requirement necessitates that the injury
be clinically diagnosed and accepted within the psychiatric
community. The South African courts have consistently
recognized that conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD), severe anxiety disorders, and major depressive episodes
can qualify as psychiatric injuries. In Mankayi v AngloGold
Ashanti Ltd 2011 (1) SA 237 (SCA), the court underscored the
necessity of clinical evidence to substantiate claims of
psychiatric harm.
1.1.2 Proximate Cause
The plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the
defendant's negligent actions and the psychiatric injury suffered.