Coppejans v Bosman (34676/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1033 (15 December 2014)

Coppejans v Bosman (34676/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1033 (15 December 2014)

The court found the plaintiff and her witness to be credible and consistent, while the defendant's evidence was contradictory and improbable. The defendant failed to prove the presence of a stray dog at the scene, and the evidence established that the plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog Max. The defendant's conduct in allowing Max into the street without a leash, despite prior incidents and warnings, constituted negligence. The defendant's subsequent actions, including offers to settle and euthanizing Max, further supported the finding of liability. The court held that the defendant is causally liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff and awarded costs on an attorney and...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 1033
Parties
Plaintiff: Catherina Wilhemina Coppejans; Defendant: Hermanus Francois Bosman
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2014
Case Number
34676/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendant found liable for damages and ordered to pay attorney and client costs.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Animal Attacks, Municipal by Laws, Attorney and Client Costs
Delict Negligence Liability for Animal Attacks Municipal by Laws Attorney and Client Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherina Wilhemina Coppejans

Plaintiff

Hermanus Francois Bosman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog Max or by a stray dog.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in allowing his dog Max into the street without a leash.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff and her witness to be credible and consistent, while the defendant's evidence was contradictory and improbable. The defendant failed to prove the presence of a stray dog at the scene, and the evidence established that the plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog Max. The defendant's conduct in allowing Max into the street without a leash, despite prior incidents and warnings, constituted negligence. The defendant's subsequent actions, including offers to settle and euthanizing Max, further supported the finding of liability. The court held that the defendant is causally liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff and awarded costs on an attorney and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendant found liable for damages and ordered to pay attorney and client costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is causally liable for the proven or agreed damages suffered by the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's attorney and client costs, including the costs of senior and junior counsel and the costs of transcribing the record.