Crown Security CC v Gabrielsen (SA 40 of 2013) [2015] NASC 14 (8 July 2015)

Crown Security CC v Gabrielsen (SA 40 of 2013) [2015] NASC 14 (8 July 2015)

There was a sufficiently close connection between the security guard's wrongful act of shooting the respondent and his employment as a security guard for the appellant, who armed him and placed him at the premises to protect them. The shooting occurred while the guard was on duty, at his place of employment, and using a firearm provided by the appellant. The appellant is therefore vicariously liable for the damages caused.

Citation
[2015] NASC 14
Parties
Appellant: Crown Security CC; Respondent: Johannes Hermanus August Gabrielsen
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
8 July 2015
Case Number
SA 40 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Delict, Employer Liability, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Delict Employer Liability Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Security CC

Appellant

Johannes Hermanus August Gabrielsen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the damages caused by its security guard's shooting of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

There was a sufficiently close connection between the security guard's wrongful act of shooting the respondent and his employment as a security guard for the appellant, who armed him and placed him at the premises to protect them. The shooting occurred while the guard was on duty, at his place of employment, and using a firearm provided by the appellant. The appellant is therefore vicariously liable for the damages caused.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of one instructing and two instructed counsel.