Messina Associated Carriers v Kleinhaus (122/99) [2001] ZASCA 46; [2001] 3 All SA 285 (A); 2001 (3) SA 868 (SCA) (27 March 2001)

Messina Associated Carriers v Kleinhaus (122/99) [2001] ZASCA 46; [2001] 3 All SA 285 (A); 2001 (3) SA 868 (SCA) (27 March 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's son was acting on behalf of the respondent and that the respondent retained the right to control the manner in which the vehicle was driven. The relationship and circumstances were sufficiently analogous to an employer-employee relationship to justify vicarious liability, even though the respondent was not present in the vehicle. However, the son's excessive speed constituted contributory negligence, and the respondent's damages should be reduced by 25% in accordance with the Apportionment of Damages Act. The Braamfontein Food Centre v Blake precedent was not followed, as the requirement of physical presence and power to control was...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 46
Parties
Appellant: Messina Associated Carriers; Respondent: Frederik Theodorus Kleinhaus
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2001
Case Number
122/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's damages reduced by 25% due to contributory negligence.
Judges
Scott, Melunsky, Brand
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Right to Control, Motor Vehicle Accident
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Right to Control Motor Vehicle Accident

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Messina Associated Carriers

Appellant

Frederik Theodorus Kleinhaus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner of a motor vehicle can be held vicariously liable for the negligent driving of another when not present in the vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's damages should be reduced due to contributory negligence by his son.
  3. 3 What constitutes sufficient analogy to an employer-employee relationship for vicarious liability in motor vehicle cases.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's son was acting on behalf of the respondent and that the respondent retained the right to control the manner in which the vehicle was driven. The relationship and circumstances were sufficiently analogous to an employer-employee relationship to justify vicarious liability, even though the respondent was not present in the vehicle. However, the son's excessive speed constituted contributory negligence, and the respondent's damages should be reduced by 25% in accordance with the Apportionment of Damages Act. The Braamfontein Food Centre v Blake precedent was not followed, as the requirement of physical presence and power to control was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's damages reduced by 25% due to contributory negligence.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff for R199 012,50 together with costs of suit.