Brown v Selane (68230/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1194 (22 September 2016)

Brown v Selane (68230/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1194 (22 September 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the dogs which attacked and bit her minor son belonged to the defendant. The evidence showed that the defendant's dogs had previously chased children and cars, and the defendant herself conceded that her dogs could run out onto the street when the gate was opened. The court rejected the defendant's denial of ownership and her suggestion that other dogs were responsible. The defendant's conduct after the incident, including follow-up calls, sending a card and chocolate, and offers to assist with medical care, were interpreted as acceptance of liability. The court held that the requirements for strict...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1194
Parties
Plaintiff: Marlene Julia Brown obo Jay-Drew Romeo Michael Brown; Defendant: Monica Phuti Selane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Case Number
68230/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Defendant found liable for damages; quantum reserved.
Judges
Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Strict Liability for Animals, Negligence, Burden of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions
Delict Strict Liability for Animals Negligence Burden of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marlene Julia Brown obo Jay-Drew Romeo Michael Brown

Plaintiff

Monica Phuti Selane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from her dogs attacking and biting the plaintiff's minor son.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved ownership of the dogs by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the dogs acted contrary to the nature of domesticated dogs or the attack was due to the defendant's negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the dogs which attacked and bit her minor son belonged to the defendant. The evidence showed that the defendant's dogs had previously chased children and cars, and the defendant herself conceded that her dogs could run out onto the street when the gate was opened. The court rejected the defendant's denial of ownership and her suggestion that other dogs were responsible. The defendant's conduct after the incident, including follow-up calls, sending a card and chocolate, and offers to assist with medical care, were interpreted as acceptance of liability. The court held that the requirements for strict...

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for damages; quantum reserved.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages she may prove resulting from her cause of action in this case.
  • The defendant is to pay the costs, the scale whereof shall be determined when quantum is decided upon.