D v Van der Walt and Another (A84/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 187 (27 October 2016)

D v Van der Walt and Another (A84/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 187 (27 October 2016)

The appellate court found that the appellant did not owe the visiting group a duty of care regarding their conduct during the tour after delegating supervision to Van der Berg and Erasmus, who were familiar with the premises and safety measures. The appellant provided an orientation and communicated safety rules, and there was no evidence of defects in the farm's structures or lapses in safety measures. The accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the appellant, but rather by the actions of the group under the supervision of Van der Berg and Erasmus, who were not in the appellant's service. Any shortcomings in their supervision could not be attributed to the appellant. The...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 187
Parties
Appellant: S. D. R.; Respondent: Christiaan Daniel van der Watt; Respondent: Christiaan Daniel van der Watt N.O
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Case Number
A84/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside; respondents' claims dismissed.
Judges
Lekale, Hancke
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability for Dangerous Animals, Wrongfulness, Standard of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Liability for Dangerous Animals Wrongfulness Standard of Care

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. D. R.

Appellant

Christiaan Daniel van der Watt

Respondent

Christiaan Daniel van der Watt N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in relation to the injuries sustained by the minor during the church excursion.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the visiting group after delegating supervision to Van der Berg and Erasmus.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct was wrongful and actionable under delictual principles.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the appellant did not owe the visiting group a duty of care regarding their conduct during the tour after delegating supervision to Van der Berg and Erasmus, who were familiar with the premises and safety measures. The appellant provided an orientation and communicated safety rules, and there was no evidence of defects in the farm's structures or lapses in safety measures. The accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the appellant, but rather by the actions of the group under the supervision of Van der Berg and Erasmus, who were not in the appellant's service. Any shortcomings in their supervision could not be attributed to the appellant. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; trial court's order set aside; respondents' claims dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The plaintiffs' respective claims on merits fail.'