Johannes v Williams and Others (2794/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 72 (4 November 2014)

Johannes v Williams and Others (2794/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 72 (4 November 2014)

The court found that the second defendant was neither the owner nor in control of the pitbull terrier responsible for the attack. There was no evidence that she assumed any responsibility for the animal or its containment. The plaintiff failed to establish that the second defendant owed a duty of care in respect of the dog or that any negligence on her part led to the escape and subsequent attack. The court distinguished the present facts from Enslin v Nhlapo and Jamneck v Wagner, noting that there was no proof of failure to maintain fences or gates, nor any explanation as to how the dog escaped. Accordingly, the claim against the second defendant failed for lack of duty and lack of...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 72
Parties
Plaintiff: Elsie Marlene Johannes; Defendant: Rayno Williams; Defendant: Felicity Williams; Defendant: James Richard Williams
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2014
Case Number
2794/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
The first defendant is found liable to the plaintiff for damages arising from the dog attack. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed for lack of duty and negligence.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Liability for Animal Attacks, Negligence, Duty of Care, Separation of Liability and Quantum
Delict Civil Procedure Liability for Animal Attacks Negligence Duty of Care Separation of Liability and Quantum

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elsie Marlene Johannes

Plaintiff

Rayno Williams

Defendant

Felicity Williams

Defendant

James Richard Williams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant, as joint owner and occupier of the property, is liable for damages caused by the pitbull terrier attack.
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff regarding the control or containment of the dog.
  3. 3 Whether negligence on the part of the second defendant has been established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant was neither the owner nor in control of the pitbull terrier responsible for the attack. There was no evidence that she assumed any responsibility for the animal or its containment. The plaintiff failed to establish that the second defendant owed a duty of care in respect of the dog or that any negligence on her part led to the escape and subsequent attack. The court distinguished the present facts from Enslin v Nhlapo and Jamneck v Wagner, noting that there was no proof of failure to maintain fences or gates, nor any explanation as to how the dog escaped. Accordingly, the claim against the second defendant failed for lack of duty and lack of...

Court Disposition

The first defendant is found liable to the plaintiff for damages arising from the dog attack. The claim against the second defendant is dismissed for lack of duty and negligence.

Orders

  • The first defendant is liable to the plaintiff for such damages as the plaintiff may establish as a result of the attack by the pitbull terrier on 29 March 2012.
  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit.