Heine v Prescor 183 CC and Others (25232/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 341 (8 July 2014)

Heine v Prescor 183 CC and Others (25232/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 341 (8 July 2014)

The court found that the fire was a veldfire within the meaning of the statute and that it spread from the First Defendant's property onto the Plaintiff's property. The Defendants failed to maintain adequate firebreaks and did not have fire fighting equipment or trained personnel available, as required by statute. The statutory presumption of negligence applied, and the Defendants did not rebut it. The lack of a firebreak on the Defendants' side of the common boundary was a major factor in the spread of the fire. The Plaintiff proved the damages claimed, except for the beehives and bauer hose, which were abandoned or not proven. However, the Plaintiff was also found negligent for storing...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 341
Parties
Plaintiff: Barry Bruce Heine; Defendant: Prescor 183 CC; Defendant: Hamilton George Esteves Vieira; Defendant: Tanya Anne Vieira
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 2014
Case Number
25232/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff. Defendants held jointly and severally liable for proven damages and costs.
Judges
T D Vilakazi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Statutory Duty of Landowners, Firebreaks, Veldfire Liability, Quantum of Damages
Delict Land and Property Negligence Statutory Duty of Landowners Firebreaks Veldfire Liability Quantum of Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Bruce Heine

Plaintiff

Prescor 183 CC

Defendant

Hamilton George Esteves Vieira

Defendant

Tanya Anne Vieira

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fire was a veldfire within the meaning of the statute.
  2. 2 Whether the fire originated or spread from the First Defendant's property.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants were negligent in failing to maintain firebreaks and fire fighting equipment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fire was a veldfire within the meaning of the statute and that it spread from the First Defendant's property onto the Plaintiff's property. The Defendants failed to maintain adequate firebreaks and did not have fire fighting equipment or trained personnel available, as required by statute. The statutory presumption of negligence applied, and the Defendants did not rebut it. The lack of a firebreak on the Defendants' side of the common boundary was a major factor in the spread of the fire. The Plaintiff proved the damages claimed, except for the beehives and bauer hose, which were abandoned or not proven. However, the Plaintiff was also found negligent for storing...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff. Defendants held jointly and severally liable for proven damages and costs.

Orders

  • The Defendants are ordered to pay the Plaintiff damages in the sum of R29,984.35.
  • The Defendants must pay the Plaintiff's costs of suit, taxed on the appropriate magistrate court scale including the cost of counsel.