Costa Da Oura Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Umdloti Bush Tavern v Reddy (486/01) [2003] ZASCA 7; [2003] 2 All SA 201 (C); 2003 (4) SA 34 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 1337 (SCA) (7 March 2003)

Costa Da Oura Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Umdloti Bush Tavern v Reddy (486/01) [2003] ZASCA 7; [2003] 2 All SA 201 (C); 2003 (4) SA 34 (SCA); (2003) 24 ILJ 1337 (SCA) (7 March 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the assault by Goldie on the respondent occurred after Goldie had abandoned his duties as a barman. The act was a personal act of aggression, not done in furtherance of the employer's interests, nor under its authority, nor as an incident to or in consequence of anything Goldie...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: Costa Da Oura Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Umdloti Bush Tavern; Respondent: Anthony Reddy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2003
Case Number
486/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plaintiff's claim with costs.
Judges
Olivier, Scott, Zulman, Cameron, Navsa
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Assault by Employee, Scope of Employment, Personal Vindictiveness
Delict Vicarious Liability Assault by Employee Scope of Employment Personal Vindictiveness

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Costa Da Oura Restaurant (Pty) Ltd t/a Umdloti Bush Tavern

Appellant

Anthony Reddy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the employer vicariously liable for an assault perpetrated by its employee on a customer?
  2. 2 Was the wrongful act sufficiently connected to the employee's duties to render the employer liable?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the assault by Goldie on the respondent occurred after Goldie had abandoned his duties as a barman. The act was a personal act of aggression, not done in furtherance of the employer's interests, nor under its authority, nor as an incident to or in consequence of anything Goldie was employed to do. Although the circumstances leading up to the assault arose from Goldie's employment, the actual attack was motivated by personal vindictiveness and was not sufficiently connected to his employment duties to render the employer vicariously liable. The appeal was upheld and the employer was not held liable for the employee's conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with dismissal of the plaintiff's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.