Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company; Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company (80/85) [1985] ZASCA 62; [1985] 2 All SA 428 (A) (30 May 1985)

Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company; Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company (80/85) [1985] ZASCA 62; [1985] 2 All SA 428 (A) (30 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the insurer failed to prove that the pilot was negligent or breached the Air Navigation Regulations or Rules of the Air. The evidence established that the pilot was a qualified and responsible aviator, flying with visual reference to the ground and not in instrument meteorological conditions. The local mist over the airfield and the masking of the Mara road by an unmarked ridge were unforeseeable and not attributable to negligence or breach of regulations. Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd was not vicariously liable for the pilot's conduct, nor did it breach the warranty clause of the insurance policy. The indemnity extended to the pilot's estate...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 62
Parties
Appellant: Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Gordon Lang & Richard Anthony Lyons (as executors of the estate of George Edward Bates); Respondent: The Aviation Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1985
Case Number
80/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Actions in the Transvaal Provincial Division and Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeals in both cases succeed. The insurer's claims are dismissed and Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd is entitled to indemnity and declaratory relief.
Judges
Trengove, Nicholas, Hefer, Galgut, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Insurance Contracts, Subrogation, Negligence, Air Navigation Regulations, Indemnity, Breach of Warranty

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Gordon Lang & Richard Anthony Lyons (as executors of the estate of George Edward Bates)

Appellant

The Aviation Insurance Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Actions in the Transvaal Provincial Division and Witwatersrand Local Division

  1. 1 Whether the pilot acted as the alter ego of Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd.
  2. 2 Whether Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd was entitled to indemnity under the insurance policy despite alleged negligence or breach of warranty.
  3. 3 Whether the pilot breached Air Navigation Regulations or Rules of the Air.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the insurer failed to prove that the pilot was negligent or breached the Air Navigation Regulations or Rules of the Air. The evidence established that the pilot was a qualified and responsible aviator, flying with visual reference to the ground and not in instrument meteorological conditions. The local mist over the airfield and the masking of the Mara road by an unmarked ridge were unforeseeable and not attributable to negligence or breach of regulations. Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd was not vicariously liable for the pilot's conduct, nor did it breach the warranty clause of the insurance policy. The indemnity extended to the pilot's estate...

Court Disposition

Appeals in both cases succeed. The insurer's claims are dismissed and Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd is entitled to indemnity and declaratory relief.

Orders

  • The appeals in both cases are upheld.
  • The respondent (insurer) is to pay the costs of both appellants, including costs of two counsel, except for costs occasioned by inclusion of unnecessary pages in the record.