Charter Hi (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Transport (155/10) [2011] ZASCA 89 (30 May 2011)

Charter Hi (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Transport (155/10) [2011] ZASCA 89 (30 May 2011)

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence and causation. While Mr Grinstead was in overall command of the flight, the evidence did not establish that his conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable official flight examiner. The court accepted that errors by pilots are to be expected and that the examiner must allow time to assess the pilot's response. The mere fact of the crash did not establish negligence, and the evidence did not show that intervention by Mr Grinstead would have prevented the accident. Furthermore, even if it was negligent to perform the manoeuvre at less than 5,000 feet, the appellants did not prove that the accident...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 89
Parties
Appellant: Charter Hi (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Haw and Inglis (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: C90 Partnership; Respondent: Minister of Transport
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2011
Case Number
155/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria), First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Nugent, Maya, Malan, Plasket
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Aviation Accident, Standard of Care, Causation
Delict Negligence Vicarious Liability Aviation Accident Standard of Care Causation

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charter Hi (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Haw and Inglis (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

C90 Partnership

Appellant

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria), First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the flight examiner during the pilot's competency test for instrument rating.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister of Transport is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the flight examiner.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants discharged the onus of proving negligence and causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence and causation. While Mr Grinstead was in overall command of the flight, the evidence did not establish that his conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable official flight examiner. The court accepted that errors by pilots are to be expected and that the examiner must allow time to assess the pilot's response. The mere fact of the crash did not establish negligence, and the evidence did not show that intervention by Mr Grinstead would have prevented the accident. Furthermore, even if it was negligent to perform the manoeuvre at less than 5,000 feet, the appellants did not prove that the accident...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.