Mashudu v Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound and Another (18952/10) [2014] ZAGPJHC 181 (15 August 2014)

Mashudu v Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound and Another (18952/10) [2014] ZAGPJHC 181 (15 August 2014)

The court found that the bus driver was on duty and engaged in the employer's business when the assault and insult occurred. The acts, though expressly forbidden by the employer, were so closely connected to the driver's authorised duties that they constituted an improper manner of executing those duties. The prohibition of certain conduct by the employer does not absolve it from vicarious liability if the acts are committed in the course and scope of employment. The defendant is therefore vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the employee's conduct.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 181
Parties
Plaintiff: Mashudu Fhedzisani; Defendant: Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound; Defendant: Peter White
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Case Number
18952/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4); Determination of Vicarious Liability
Outcome
The defendant is held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee and is liable for any damages suffered by the plaintiff.
Judges
Wepener
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Scope of Employment, Assault by Employee, Employer Liability
Delict Vicarious Liability Scope of Employment Assault by Employee Employer Liability

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashudu Fhedzisani

Plaintiff

Unitrans Limited t/a Greyhound

Defendant

Peter White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4); Determination of Vicarious Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the employer vicariously liable for the assault and insult perpetrated by its employee while on duty?
  2. 2 Does the prohibition of certain conduct by the employer absolve it from liability for acts committed by the employee in the course of employment?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the bus driver was on duty and engaged in the employer's business when the assault and insult occurred. The acts, though expressly forbidden by the employer, were so closely connected to the driver's authorised duties that they constituted an improper manner of executing those duties. The prohibition of certain conduct by the employer does not absolve it from vicarious liability if the acts are committed in the course and scope of employment. The defendant is therefore vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the employee's conduct.

Court Disposition

The defendant is held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee and is liable for any damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of this part of the hearing.