Hanger v Regal and Another (A77/2015) [2022] ZAFSHC 190 (11 March 2022)

Hanger v Regal and Another (A77/2015) [2022] ZAFSHC 190 (11 March 2022)

The appeal was considered solely on the basis of the actio legis aquiliae, as the pleadings and evidence focused on negligence rather than strict liability. The appellant's evidence, supported by expert testimony, established prima facie grounds that the respondents failed to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from the bear, including the absence of a secondary barrier and adequate warnings. The second respondent's conduct in inviting the appellant to feed the bear and failing to warn her further supported the claim of negligence. The court found that the appellant did not voluntarily accept the risk of injury, and the burden of proof for volenti non fit iniuria rested with the...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 190
Parties
Appellant: Maria Elizabeth Hanger; Respondent: Joe Regal; Respondent: Petra Regal
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Case Number
A77/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal Against Order of Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside.
Judges
VAN ZYL, OPPERMAN, DANISO
Legal Topics
Negligence, Actio Legis Aquiliae, Absolution From the Instance, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
Delict Land and Property Negligence Actio Legis Aquiliae Absolution From the Instance Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Iniuria

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

Maria Elizabeth Hanger

Appellant

Joe Regal

Respondent

Petra Regal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal Against Order of Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were negligent in failing to adequately secure the bear and protect visitors from harm.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case to survive absolution from the instance.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant voluntarily accepted the risk of injury (volenti non fit iniuria).

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was considered solely on the basis of the actio legis aquiliae, as the pleadings and evidence focused on negligence rather than strict liability. The appellant's evidence, supported by expert testimony, established prima facie grounds that the respondents failed to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from the bear, including the absence of a secondary barrier and adequate warnings. The second respondent's conduct in inviting the appellant to feed the bear and failing to warn her further supported the claim of negligence. The court found that the appellant did not voluntarily accept the risk of injury, and the burden of proof for volenti non fit iniuria rested with the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside.

Orders

  • The application for absolution from the instance is dismissed, with costs.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, jointly and severally, payment by the one the other to be absolved.