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
Which one of the following cases dealt with the doctrine of informed consent?
a.
_Roux v Hattingh_ 2012 6 SA 428 (SCA).
b.
_Castell v De Greef_ 1994 4 SA 408 (C).
c.
_Lee v Minister of Correctional Services_ 2013 2 SA 144 (CC).
d.
_Le Roux v Dey_ 2011 3 SA 274 (CC).
Clear my choice
On a misty night, Bill must walk through a neighbourhood in which several incidents of
armed robbery have recently taken place. Suddenly he sees the dim outline of a person
pointing a handgun in his direction. Bill quickly pulls out his own pistol and fires a shot. The
person falls to the ground and Bill rushes forward to disarm him. When he gets to the fallen
person, he sees that it is Jim who owns the corner shop nearby. It transpires that Jim has
not been pointing a firearm, as Bill thought, but was pointing a malfunctioning torch and
trying to switch it on. Jim is seriously wounded and needs treatment in hospital. Jim
institutes a delictual claim against Bill. Bill raises private defence as a ground of
justification. Apply the views of Neethling and Potgieter to this set of facts and select the
best option:
a.
Bill is relying on putative private defence and he may escape liability because of the
absence of fault.
b.
Bill’s prospects of succeeding with his reliance on private defence are good.
c.
Bill will be held delictually liable.
d.
Bill is relying on putative private defence and his conduct will be found to be lawful rather
than wrongful.
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.
Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:
Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
Compra fácil y rápido
Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.
Enfócate en lo más importante
Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable.
Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!
Preguntas frecuentes
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.
100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?
Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Melindatutor. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for 2,73 €. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.