Barnard v Santam Bpk. (61/97) [1998] ZASCA 84; 1999 (1) SA 202 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 403 (A) (25 September 1998)

Barnard v Santam Bpk. (61/97) [1998] ZASCA 84; 1999 (1) SA 202 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 403 (A) (25 September 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the nervous shock suffered by the appellant upon learning of her son's death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligent driving that caused the fatal accident. The court rejected the respondent's argument that liability should be excluded in 'hearsay' cases, finding that South African law does not require the claimant to be present at the scene or to witness the aftermath directly. The close relationship between mother and child made the psychiatric injury foreseeable to a reasonable person in the position of the negligent driver. Policy concerns about indeterminate liability were found to be overstated, given the rarity of such claims...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Petronella Cornelia Barnard; Respondent: Santam Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 1998
Case Number
61/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced.
Judges
Van Heerden, Vivier, Nienaber, Schutz, Scott
Legal Topics
Nervous Shock, Psychiatric Injury, Foreseeability, Causation, Policy Limitation
Delict Nervous Shock Psychiatric Injury Foreseeability Causation Policy Limitation

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petronella Cornelia Barnard

Appellant

Santam Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether nervous shock and psychiatric injury suffered by the appellant upon learning of her son's death is recoverable in law.
  2. 2 Whether mere grief or emotional distress, absent psychiatric injury, is compensable under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the nervous shock suffered by the appellant upon learning of her son's death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligent driving that caused the fatal accident. The court rejected the respondent's argument that liability should be excluded in 'hearsay' cases, finding that South African law does not require the claimant to be present at the scene or to witness the aftermath directly. The close relationship between mother and child made the psychiatric injury foreseeable to a reasonable person in the position of the negligent driver. Policy concerns about indeterminate liability were found to be overstated, given the rarity of such claims...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The first question in the stated case is answered in the affirmative; the second in the negative.