Meter NO and Others v Geo Parkes & Son (Pty) Ltd (590/05) [2006] ZASCA 133; [2006] SCA 161 (RSA) (30 November 2006)

Meter NO and Others v Geo Parkes & Son (Pty) Ltd (590/05) [2006] ZASCA 133; [2006] SCA 161 (RSA) (30 November 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Trust was negligent in failing to construct and maintain firebreaks as required by section 12(1) of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. The statutory presumption of negligence under section 34(1) applied, and the Trust failed to discharge the onus of proving that its negligence was not causally related to the respondent's damage. The evidence did not establish vicarious liability for De Jager's acts, but the Trust's own omissions were wrongful and negligent. The respondent's alleged contributory negligence was not proved, as the evidence did not show that its firebreaks or fire-fighting measures were inadequate or causally contributed to the...

Citation
[2006] SCA 161 (RSA)
Parties
Appellant: Cornelis Arjen Meter NO; Appellant: Rita Ella Meter NO; Appellant: Alida Elizabeth Berman NO; Respondent: Geo Parkes & Son (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2006
Case Number
590/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Farlam, Heher, Cachalia
Legal Topics
National Veld and Forest Fire Act, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Firebreaks, Apportionment of Damages
Land and Property Delict National Veld and Forest Fire Act Negligence Vicarious Liability Firebreaks Apportionment of Damages

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelis Arjen Meter NO

Appellant

Rita Ella Meter NO

Appellant

Alida Elizabeth Berman NO

Appellant

Geo Parkes & Son (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Trust negligent in failing to construct and maintain firebreaks as required by statute?
  2. 2 Did the Trust discharge the statutory presumption of negligence under section 34(1) of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act?
  3. 3 Was the Trust vicariously liable for the negligent acts of De Jager?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Trust was negligent in failing to construct and maintain firebreaks as required by section 12(1) of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. The statutory presumption of negligence under section 34(1) applied, and the Trust failed to discharge the onus of proving that its negligence was not causally related to the respondent's damage. The evidence did not establish vicarious liability for De Jager's acts, but the Trust's own omissions were wrongful and negligent. The respondent's alleged contributory negligence was not proved, as the evidence did not show that its firebreaks or fire-fighting measures were inadequate or causally contributed to the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the trial court stands: the trustees are jointly and severally liable with De Jager for damages as the plaintiff may prove, with apportionment of damages at 70% for De Jager and 30% for the trustees.