H obo H v Gungapursat (55619/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1129 (10 December 2015)

H obo H v Gungapursat (55619/14) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1129 (10 December 2015)

The court found, on the probabilities, that the defendant was the owner or at least co-owner of the dog, Chaos, and that the dog bit the minor child R, causing serious injuries. The evidence established that the dog acted contra naturam sui generis, and the defendant failed to present credible evidence to the contrary. Even if the defendant was not the owner, he was in control of the dog and aware of its aggressive tendencies and the risk it posed to residents, especially children. The defendant received formal notice from the body corporate regarding the dog's behaviour and the lack of approval to keep it on the premises. The defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1129
Parties
Plaintiff: A. H. obo R. H.; Plaintiff: A. H.; Defendant: K.K. Gungapursat
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Case Number
55619/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability / Trial on Liability; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Defendant held liable for any damages proven by the plaintiffs resulting from the dog bite incident of 2 May 2014.
Judges
C.P. Rabie
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Actio Legis Aquiliae, Dog Bite Liability, Negligence, Ownership and Control of Animals
Delict Land and Property Actio De Pauperie Actio Legis Aquiliae Dog Bite Liability Negligence Ownership and Control of Animals

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. H. obo R. H.

Plaintiff

A. H.

Plaintiff

K.K. Gungapursat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability / Trial on Liability; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was the owner or co-owner of the dog that bit the minor child R.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable under the actio de pauperie for damages caused by the dog.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was negligent in controlling the dog and thus liable under the actio legis Aquiliae.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the probabilities, that the defendant was the owner or at least co-owner of the dog, Chaos, and that the dog bit the minor child R, causing serious injuries. The evidence established that the dog acted contra naturam sui generis, and the defendant failed to present credible evidence to the contrary. Even if the defendant was not the owner, he was in control of the dog and aware of its aggressive tendencies and the risk it posed to residents, especially children. The defendant received formal notice from the body corporate regarding the dog's behaviour and the lack of approval to keep it on the premises. The defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for any damages proven by the plaintiffs resulting from the dog bite incident of 2 May 2014.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for any damages which the first plaintiff and second plaintiff may prove as resulting from the biting by the dog of R on 2 May 2014.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action relating to the issue of liability.