Artone Press (Pty) Ltd v Haddons Trading (Pty) Ltd (537/92) [1994] ZASCA 44 (29 March 1994)

Artone Press (Pty) Ltd v Haddons Trading (Pty) Ltd (537/92) [1994] ZASCA 44 (29 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the damage to its printing machine was caused by the negligent act of one or other of the respondent's employees while repairing the machine. The court rejected the respondent's theory that the Allen key was embedded in the paper, finding the evidence supporting this version unconvincing and lacking credibility. The court also found the respondent's witnesses unreliable, particularly regarding the use and possession of Allen keys and the timing of repairs. In contrast, the appellant's witnesses were credible and their evidence supported the inference that the respondent's employees...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 44
Parties
Appellant: Artone Press (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Haddons Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1994
Case Number
537/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Judgment granted in favour of the appellant for damages, interest, and costs.
Judges
Botha, Smalberger, Mahomed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Absolution From the Instance, Damages for Property, Vicarious Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Absolution From the Instance Damages for Property Vicarious Liability

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artone Press (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Haddons Trading (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's employees negligently caused damage to the appellant's printing machine.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in granting absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the damage to its printing machine was caused by the negligent act of one or other of the respondent's employees while repairing the machine. The court rejected the respondent's theory that the Allen key was embedded in the paper, finding the evidence supporting this version unconvincing and lacking credibility. The court also found the respondent's witnesses unreliable, particularly regarding the use and possession of Allen keys and the timing of repairs. In contrast, the appellant's witnesses were credible and their evidence supported the inference that the respondent's employees...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Judgment granted in favour of the appellant for damages, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with judgment for the plaintiff for payment of R327,370.58.