Deysel v Karsten (160/1992) [1993] ZASCA 117; 1994 (1) SA 447 (AD); [1994] 1 All SA 357 (A) (14 September 1993)

Deysel v Karsten (160/1992) [1993] ZASCA 117; 1994 (1) SA 447 (AD); [1994] 1 All SA 357 (A) (14 September 1993)

The court held that the respondent, as owner of the dog, was not negligent in the circumstances. Although it was foreseeable that a dog might run into the street and cause harm, the respondent had taken reasonable steps to confine the dog, including securing the gate and instructing those with access to the property to keep it closed. The evidence did not establish that the respondent failed to take adequate precautions or that he was personally negligent. The respondent's letter to the property owner was found to be imprecise and did not contradict his testimony regarding the measures taken. The court rejected the notion of automatic liability for owners whose dogs stray into the street,...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 117
Parties
Appellant: Christoffel Jacobus Deysel; Respondent: Gideon Jacobus Karsten
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 1993
Case Number
160/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Eastern Cape Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Hefer, Kumleben, Eksteen, Van den Heever
Legal Topics
Negligence, Liability for Animals, Foreseeability, Standard of Care
Delict Negligence Liability for Animals Foreseeability 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christoffel Jacobus Deysel

Appellant

Gideon Jacobus Karsten

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Eastern Cape Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as owner of the dog, was negligent in failing to prevent the dog from escaping and causing injury to the appellant's son.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent took reasonable steps to confine the dog and prevent foreseeable harm.
  3. 3 Whether the mere fact of a dog straying into the street constitutes negligence per se.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent, as owner of the dog, was not negligent in the circumstances. Although it was foreseeable that a dog might run into the street and cause harm, the respondent had taken reasonable steps to confine the dog, including securing the gate and instructing those with access to the property to keep it closed. The evidence did not establish that the respondent failed to take adequate precautions or that he was personally negligent. The respondent's letter to the property owner was found to be imprecise and did not contradict his testimony regarding the measures taken. The court rejected the notion of automatic liability for owners whose dogs stray into the street,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by his applications for condonation of late filing and late lodging of a power of attorney.