Samenvatting

Summary Delict Term 1 Consolidated Notes (Fagan's Section)

8 keer verkocht

Vak
Law Of Delict

Instelling
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.

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 4 van de 94 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 22 mei 2023
Aantal pagina's 94
Geschreven in 2021/2022
Type Samenvatting

aquilian liability
delict

Instelling
University of Cape Town (UCT)
Vak
Law Of Delict

Volgen

RachelWeisz

Lid sinds 7 jaar 640 documenten verkocht

106

€6,42

In winkelwagen

Op verlanglijstje

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

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

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Focus op de essentie

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper RachelWeisz. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,42. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67418 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Start met verkopen

Samenvatting

Summary Delict Term 1 Consolidated Notes (Fagan's Section)

Document informatie

Onderwerpen

Geschreven voor

Verkoper

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud