Hilder v Jafta and Another (15902/05) [2008] ZAKZHC 92 (21 November 2008)

Hilder v Jafta and Another (15902/05) [2008] ZAKZHC 92 (21 November 2008)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants were the owners of the boerboel dog that attacked the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses was credible and consistent, and the defendants' explanations were unconvincing and vague. The court accepted that the dog acted contra naturam sui generis, satisfying the requirements for liability under actio de pauperie. The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving any contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The quantum of damages was determined based on medical evidence, expert testimony, and comparable case law, resulting in an award for past medical expenses, future corrective procedures,...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 92
Parties
Plaintiff: Michelle Hilder; Defendant: Donovan Michael Jafta; Defendant: Rene Patricia Jafta
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Case Number
15902/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendants held liable for damages.
Judges
Nicholson
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Lex Aquilia, Liability for Animal Attacks, Damages Quantification, Causation, Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Actio De Pauperie Lex Aquilia Liability for Animal Attacks Damages Quantification Causation Negligence

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Hilder

Plaintiff

Donovan Michael Jafta

Defendant

Rene Patricia Jafta

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were the owners of the dog that attacked the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the dog acted contra naturam sui generis, justifying liability under actio de pauperie.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were negligent in failing to prevent the attack, establishing liability under lex Aquilia.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendants were the owners of the boerboel dog that attacked the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff and her witnesses was credible and consistent, and the defendants' explanations were unconvincing and vague. The court accepted that the dog acted contra naturam sui generis, satisfying the requirements for liability under actio de pauperie. The defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving any contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The quantum of damages was determined based on medical evidence, expert testimony, and comparable case law, resulting in an award for past medical expenses, future corrective procedures,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendants held liable for damages.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted against the defendants for damages in the sum of R73,766.
  • Costs of suit on the Magistrates Court scale, including the preparation and attendance fees of Dr Mahomva.