Muller v De Waal and Another (15448/17) [2023] ZAWCHC 173 (24 March 2023)

Muller v De Waal and Another (15448/17) [2023] ZAWCHC 173 (24 March 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff was lawfully present and bitten by the defendants' dog without provocation or extrinsic cause, thereby discharging her onus under actio de pauperie. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff was negligent or that she assumed the risk of harm. The evidence showed that the defendants did not adequately warn the plaintiff of the dogs' violent tendencies or the necessity of keeping certain doors closed. The court held that the defendants, as owners, are strictly liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as none of the exceptions to strict liability were established. The defences of novus actus interveniens and volenti non fit iniuria were dismissed. The...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 173
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaretha Johanna Catharina Muller; Defendant: Johan De Waal; Defendant: Rina De Waal
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Case Number
15448/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds; defendants held jointly and severally liable for 100% of plaintiff's yet to be quantified damages and costs. Quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
Fortuin
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Strict Liability, Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Novus Actus Interveniens
Delict Civil Procedure Actio De Pauperie Strict Liability Negligence Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Novus Actus Interveniens

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaretha Johanna Catharina Muller

Plaintiff

Johan De Waal

Defendant

Rina De Waal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are strictly liable under actio de pauperie for injuries caused by their dog to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent or assumed the risk, thereby absolving the defendants of liability.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants adequately warned the plaintiff of the dogs' violent tendencies and the need to keep doors closed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was lawfully present and bitten by the defendants' dog without provocation or extrinsic cause, thereby discharging her onus under actio de pauperie. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff was negligent or that she assumed the risk of harm. The evidence showed that the defendants did not adequately warn the plaintiff of the dogs' violent tendencies or the necessity of keeping certain doors closed. The court held that the defendants, as owners, are strictly liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as none of the exceptions to strict liability were established. The defences of novus actus interveniens and volenti non fit iniuria were dismissed. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds; defendants held jointly and severally liable for 100% of plaintiff's yet to be quantified damages and costs. Quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • Defendants are liable jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the plaintiff 100% of her yet to be quantified damages arising from the incident on 11 July 2015.
  • Defendants are liable jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay all the plaintiff’s costs of suit inclusive of all reserved costs in respect of liability, including costs of inspections in loco, application to compel, opposition to Rule 38 application, and wasted costs.