Dormac Marine and Engineering (Pty) Ltd v C A Henneberry (305/10) [2011] ZASCA 63 (1 April 2011)

Dormac Marine and Engineering (Pty) Ltd v C A Henneberry (305/10) [2011] ZASCA 63 (1 April 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Dormac took reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable harm by contracting Nu Quip, an independent specialist, to inspect and certify all lifting equipment before use. The chain block that broke had been tested and certified as safe prior to being issued to Camrod, and there was no evidence that Dormac failed to take further reasonable precautions or that it should have done more. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on Dormac's part. The principle of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable, as the evidence showed that Dormac's procedures for inspection and certification were reasonable and in compliance with statutory...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Dormac Marine and Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Calmin Andrew Henneberry
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2011
Case Number
305/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court (durban), First Instance
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Order of absolution from the instance granted in favour of Dormac, with costs (excluding costs of preparing volume 2 of the record).
Judges
Mpati, Maya, Cachalia, Shongwe, Seriti
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Bodily Injury, Independent Contractor Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Res Ipsa Loquitur Bodily Injury Independent Contractor Liability

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

Parties

Dormac Marine and Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Calmin Andrew Henneberry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court (durban), First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dormac owed the respondent a duty of care to provide proper and safe equipment for use on site.
  2. 2 Whether Dormac breached its duty of care by failing to provide safe equipment, safety personnel, and qualified supervisors.
  3. 3 Whether the chain block that broke was defective due to Dormac's negligence or due to other causes.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Dormac took reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable harm by contracting Nu Quip, an independent specialist, to inspect and certify all lifting equipment before use. The chain block that broke had been tested and certified as safe prior to being issued to Camrod, and there was no evidence that Dormac failed to take further reasonable precautions or that it should have done more. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on Dormac's part. The principle of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable, as the evidence showed that Dormac's procedures for inspection and certification were reasonable and in compliance with statutory...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Order of absolution from the instance granted in favour of Dormac, with costs (excluding costs of preparing volume 2 of the record).

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, excluding costs of preparing volume 2 of the record.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with: 'Absolution from the instance is granted, with costs.'