Summary Delict Term 1 Consolidated Notes (Fagan's Section)
69 vues 8 fois vendu
Cours
Law Of Delict
Établissement
University Of Cape Town (UCT)
A thorough summary of the textbook, aimed at making sure readers understand Aquilian liability holistically and simplifying the concepts through diagrams, accessible language, and clear guidelines on how to apply rules. I received a first for this course in 2022.
Delict Test Consolidated Notes
Table of Contents
Topic One: Introduction......................................................................................................2
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?..................................................................................................2
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability..................................................4
Topic Two: Fault/ Culpability..............................................................................................7
Part I: Fault in the Form of Negligence..........................................................................................8
Scaffolding of Negligence and the Kruger v Coetzee Test..............................................................................8
Fagan’s Analysis of the Kruger v Coetzee Test................................................................................................9
Abstract vs Relative Approaches to Negligence...........................................................................................22
Part II: Fault in the Form of Intent.............................................................................................31
Scaffolding for Intention...............................................................................................................................31
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................31
Why intention matters to the determination of liability.........................................................................31
The Nature and Content of the Intention Required for Liability..................................................................37
Standard View on the Required Form or Direction of Will......................................................................38
Fagan’s Criticism and Comments.............................................................................................................39
Standard View on the Requirement of Consciousness of Wrongfulness................................................43
Fagan’s View of the Required Intention’s Nature and Content..............................................................44
Topic Three: Wrongfulness...............................................................................................48
Part I: The Scaffolding of Wrongfulness......................................................................................48
Where does this fit into Aquilian Liability?...................................................................................................48
Introduction to Wrongfulness......................................................................................................................48
Debate on the Meaning of Wrongfulness: Orthodox View vs Fagan’s View...............................................49
Evidence that the correct view is Fagan’s view.......................................................................................50
Part II: Negligent Harm Causing Conduct as Wrongful................................................................50
Breach of a Duty to not Cause Harm Negligently: Tracking the Legal Development...................................50
Overview..................................................................................................................................................50
A Breach of this Kind is a Requirement for Liability................................................................................51
Using ‘wrongfulness’ to refer to breach of this kind of duty...................................................................53
Necessity of Negligence...........................................................................................................................54
Law Determining When Negligent Harm-Causing Conduct was Wrongful..................................................57
Overview of the Prima Facie Rules..........................................................................................................57
Positive acts causing physical harm.........................................................................................................58
Omissions.................................................................................................................................................59
Pure Economic Loss..................................................................................................................................63
Part III: Intentional Harm-causing Conduct.................................................................................67
Overview of Rules for Intentional Conduct..................................................................................................67
Justifying the Claim that Wrongfulness for IHCC Depends on a Breach of a Duty not to Cause Harm
Intentionally..................................................................................................................................................67
Justification 1: There has been implied acceptance of the duty not to cause harm intentionally by the
courts.......................................................................................................................................................68
Justification 2: This makes sense based on the nature of the duty not to cause harm intentionally.....69
Law Determining When Intentional Harm-causing Conduct was Wrongful................................................72
The Prima Facie Rules..............................................................................................................................72
The Justification Ground of Consent........................................................................................................73
,Topic Four: Causation and Remoteness............................................................................75
Part I: Introduction.....................................................................................................................75
Part II: Factual Causation............................................................................................................77
The Test for Factual Causation.....................................................................................................................77
Applying the ‘But-for’ Test............................................................................................................................77
For Negligence Cases...............................................................................................................................78
Understanding the Standard of Proof..........................................................................................................78
Kinds of Cases That May Pose Problems for the ‘But-for’ Test....................................................................79
‘Lost Chance’ Cases..................................................................................................................................79
Cases Involving ‘Multiple Causes’ or ‘Concurrent Causes’......................................................................80
Cases Involving ‘Evidential Gaps’.............................................................................................................81
Systemic Negligent Omission; Unreasonable Systems Increasing the Risk of Harm...............................81
Part III: Legal Causation (Remoteness Enquiry)...........................................................................85
The Purpose of the Requirement of Legal Causation...................................................................................85
Typical Two Scenarios for Remoteness........................................................................................................86
The ‘Classic’ Remoteness Case.................................................................................................................86
The Unorthodox Scenario of ‘Relational’/ Secondary Harm...................................................................89
The Test for Legal Causation.........................................................................................................................90
Relevant factors when applying the ‘flexible test’..................................................................................92
Illustrations of the non- remoteness test’s flexibility..............................................................................93
Topic One: Introduction
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?
,This section is about Aquillian liability which is a particular kind of liability. It is sometimes
called damnum iniuria datum or ‘loss wrongfully caused’.
What is a delict?
A delict or a tort in general terms refers to a civil wrong committed by the breach of a non-
contractual duty not to cause harm by ones negligence or intentionally that is owed by one
person to another, which gives rise to a duty on the wrong-doer to compensate the victim
for the harm caused and its consequences
Thus a delict is a civil wrong that exists where all five of these elements are present:
1) there must have been harm sustained by the plaintiff, 2) conduct on the part of
the defendant, 3) that conduct must be ‘wrongful’, 4) there must be a causal
connection between the conduct and the plaintiff’s harm and 5) fault or
blameworthiness on the part of the defendant
o Example: defamation
o If any one or more of these elements are missing, then a delict has not
occurred
Other definitions of delict focus on the differences between a delict and a breach of
contract and a crime (a delict can also be either of these other two things but they
are conceptually different)
o A delict is different from a breach of contract because a delict is a breach of a
duty that is infringed is imposed by law (rather than by contract)
independently of the will of the party bound
o A delict is different from a crime because a delict is a wrong that gives rise to
a civil action for damages provided certain requirements are met and always
involves a breach of duty of one person to another (not always the case with
a crime)
Where does Aquilian Liability fall into the law of delict?
A distinction may be drawn between delicts causing patrimonial damage (harm
resulting in financial loss) and non-patrimonial damage, specifically to harm to
personality
, The classic remedy for a delict is compensation: a claim of damages for the harm
caused.
o If this harm takes the form of patrimonial loss, one uses the Aquilian action
o If the harm takes the form of injury to a personality interest (an injuria), the
claim is made in terms of the actio injuriarum.
Subdivided into corpus, farma and dignitus
o If pain and suffering associated with bodily injury, a separate action arises,
similar to the Aquilian action but of Germanic origin – an action for pain and
suffering
Less common and important than the other two forms of delictual
liability
Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions
Necessary conditions – given by the phrase ‘only if’
o Must be present, alongside other conditions, for a particular result to follow
o For example, passing delict along with other courses is a necessary condition
for getting your LLB
Sufficient – given by the phrase ‘if’
o When present on its own, causes a particular result to follow
o For example, getting 50 percent for delict is a sufficient condition for passing
delict
Necessary and sufficient conditions – if and only if
o Turning the key in your car is both a necessary and sufficient condition
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability
W
N I
C H L
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur RachelWeisz. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 6,55 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
