Long and Another v Jacobs (145/11) [2012] ZASCA 58 (2 April 2012)

Long and Another v Jacobs (145/11) [2012] ZASCA 58 (2 April 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants owed the respondent a legal duty to act positively to ensure her safety, given the death threats made by the learner. The first appellant's failure to supervise the learner after being made aware of the threats constituted negligence, as a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to prevent harm. The trial court's apportionment of fault and assessment of damages were found to be within its judicial discretion and supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 58
Parties
Appellant: Keith Long; Appellant: The Member of the Executive Committee for Education, Western Cape; Respondent: Tania Megan Jacobs
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2012
Case Number
145/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by employment of two counsel.
Judges
Mthiyane, Cloete, Van Heerden, Leach, Petse
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Quantum of Damages, Apportionment of Fault
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Vicarious Liability Quantum of Damages Apportionment of Fault

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Long

Appellant

The Member of the Executive Committee for Education, Western Cape

Appellant

Tania Megan Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants and their servants owed the respondent a legal duty to act positively to ensure her safety and security.
  2. 2 Whether the first appellant's conduct on 27 September 2001 was negligent and causally linked to the harm suffered by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its apportionment of fault between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants owed the respondent a legal duty to act positively to ensure her safety, given the death threats made by the learner. The first appellant's failure to supervise the learner after being made aware of the threats constituted negligence, as a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to prevent harm. The trial court's apportionment of fault and assessment of damages were found to be within its judicial discretion and supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.