De Pontes v Kegge (1773/2018) [2021] ZAECPEHC 3 (26 January 2021)

De Pontes v Kegge (1773/2018) [2021] ZAECPEHC 3 (26 January 2021)

The court found that the defendant, as owner of the horse and occupier of property adjacent to a busy public road, owed a duty of care to prevent his horses from escaping and accessing the road. Although the defendant secured the gate with a chain and carabiner, this was insufficient to guard against foreseeable negligence by third parties, such as leaving the gate open. The defendant conceded that had he locked the gate, the horse would not have escaped. The court held that the defendant negligently breached his duty of care by failing to secure the gate with a lock, which allowed the horse to escape and cause the collision. The plaintiff was not negligent, as the collision occurred in...

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Gerald De Pontes; Defendant: Stephen Kegge
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Case Number
1773/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Defendant found solely liable for damages arising from the collision; plaintiff absolved from the claim in reconvention.
Judges
O H Ronaasen
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Liability for Animals, Contributory Negligence
Delict Land and Property Negligence Duty of Care Liability for Animals Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald De Pontes

Plaintiff

Stephen Kegge

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant negligently breached his admitted duty of care to prevent his horses from escaping and accessing the public road, and if so, whether his negligence was causally connected to the plaintiff's injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in relation to the collision and, if so, whether his negligence contributed to the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, as owner of the horse and occupier of property adjacent to a busy public road, owed a duty of care to prevent his horses from escaping and accessing the road. Although the defendant secured the gate with a chain and carabiner, this was insufficient to guard against foreseeable negligence by third parties, such as leaving the gate open. The defendant conceded that had he locked the gate, the horse would not have escaped. The court held that the defendant negligently breached his duty of care by failing to secure the gate with a lock, which allowed the horse to escape and cause the collision. The plaintiff was not negligent, as the collision occurred in...

Court Disposition

Defendant found solely liable for damages arising from the collision; plaintiff absolved from the claim in reconvention.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant was causally negligent and is solely liable for any damages the plaintiff may prove he suffered as a result of the collision, with quantum to be determined at a later trial.
  • The plaintiff is absolved from the instance in respect of the claim in reconvention.