Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rockland Poultry v Rieck (483/05) [2006] ZASCA 168; 2007 (2) SA 118 (SCA); [2007] 1 BLLR 1 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 307 (SCA) (28 September 2006)

Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rockland Poultry v Rieck (483/05) [2006] ZASCA 168; 2007 (2) SA 118 (SCA); [2007] 1 BLLR 1 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 307 (SCA) (28 September 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the appellant's employee in firing at the vehicle was wrongful and negligent. The immediate risk to the respondent from shooting at the vehicle far outweighed the speculative risk that she might be harmed if the robbers escaped. The court found that a reasonable person would not have fired at the vehicle under the circumstances, and thus the appellant was vicariously liable for the harm caused. Regarding the statutory defence, the court interpreted the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act as conferring immunity only on the actual employer, being the party with whom the employee has a contract of employment. The...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 168
Parties
Appellant: Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry; Respondent: Renette Rieck
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2006
Case Number
483/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the South Eastern Cape High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Farlam, Mthiyane, Nugent, Mlambo, Combrinck
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Necessity Defence, Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Labour Broker Relationships
Delict Labour Law Vicarious Liability Necessity Defence Compensation for Occupational Injuries Labour Broker Relationships

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Chickens (Pty) Ltd t/a Rocklands Poultry

Appellant

Renette Rieck

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the South Eastern Cape High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the injury caused to the respondent by its employee.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of shooting at the vehicle constituted wrongful and negligent conduct under circumstances of necessity.
  3. 3 Whether the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act precludes the respondent's claim against the appellant as 'employer'.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the appellant's employee in firing at the vehicle was wrongful and negligent. The immediate risk to the respondent from shooting at the vehicle far outweighed the speculative risk that she might be harmed if the robbers escaped. The court found that a reasonable person would not have fired at the vehicle under the circumstances, and thus the appellant was vicariously liable for the harm caused. Regarding the statutory defence, the court interpreted the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act as conferring immunity only on the actual employer, being the party with whom the employee has a contract of employment. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The application to amend the plea to introduce the statutory defence is refused.