Bezuidenhout NO v Eskom (379/2001) [2002] ZASCA 152; [2003] 1 All SA 411 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 83 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 1084 (SCA) (29 November 2002)

Bezuidenhout NO v Eskom (379/2001) [2002] ZASCA 152; [2003] 1 All SA 411 (SCA); 2003 (3) SA 83 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 1084 (SCA) (29 November 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by Roux, an unauthorised passenger, because the employee, Oelofse, acted outside the scope of his employment by inviting Roux into the vehicle in contravention of express instructions. The negligent driving occurred while Oelofse was performing his duties, but the duty of care owed to Roux arose only because of the unauthorised act of carrying a passenger, which was not part of the employee's authorised functions. The Court reaffirmed the precedent in SAR&H v Marais, finding that the employer's liability does not extend to unauthorised passengers, and distinguished between the duty...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 152
Parties
Appellant: L F Bezuidenhout NO; Respondent: Eskom
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2002
Case Number
379/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Trial Judgment and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Howie, Streicher, Mpati, Heher, Lewis
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Unauthorised Passenger, Negligent Driving
Delict Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Unauthorised Passenger Negligent Driving

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L F Bezuidenhout NO

Appellant

Eskom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Trial Judgment and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (employer) is vicariously liable for damages suffered by an unauthorised passenger injured due to the employee's negligent driving.
  2. 2 Whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident.
  3. 3 Whether the injured party was a foreseeable plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by Roux, an unauthorised passenger, because the employee, Oelofse, acted outside the scope of his employment by inviting Roux into the vehicle in contravention of express instructions. The negligent driving occurred while Oelofse was performing his duties, but the duty of care owed to Roux arose only because of the unauthorised act of carrying a passenger, which was not part of the employee's authorised functions. The Court reaffirmed the precedent in SAR&H v Marais, finding that the employer's liability does not extend to unauthorised passengers, and distinguished between the duty...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs attendant upon the employment of two counsel.