Pienaar v Jacobus and Another (1634/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 125 (26 August 2004)

Pienaar v Jacobus and Another (1634/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 125 (26 August 2004)

The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dogs and that their attack on the plaintiff was contra naturam sui generis, as it was not expected of well-behaved dogs to attack a person lawfully present on the premises without provocation. The plaintiff was present with the defendant's consent and had no knowledge of any risk posed by the dogs, nor did she see any warning sign. The defendant failed to prove any defence based on third-party fault or consent to risk. The court held that strict liability under the actio de pauperie applied, and the defendant was liable for damages resulting from the attack. The quantum of damages was postponed for later determination.

Citation
[2004] ZAFSHC 125
Parties
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Pienaar; Defendant: Willem Petrus Jacobus
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2004
Case Number
1634/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on the main cause of action under actio de pauperie; defendant found liable for damages.
Judges
Van der Merwe R
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Liability for Domesticated Animals, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Contributory Negligence
Delict Actio De Pauperie Liability for Domesticated Animals Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Contributory Negligence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Pienaar

Plaintiff

Willem Petrus Jacobus

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is strictly liable under the actio de pauperie for injuries caused by his dogs to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's conduct or consent to risk excludes the defendant's liability.
  3. 3 Whether the presence of a warning sign or third-party intervention absolves the defendant from liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dogs and that their attack on the plaintiff was contra naturam sui generis, as it was not expected of well-behaved dogs to attack a person lawfully present on the premises without provocation. The plaintiff was present with the defendant's consent and had no knowledge of any risk posed by the dogs, nor did she see any warning sign. The defendant failed to prove any defence based on third-party fault or consent to risk. The court held that strict liability under the actio de pauperie applied, and the defendant was liable for damages resulting from the attack. The quantum of damages was postponed for later determination.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on the main cause of action under actio de pauperie; defendant found liable for damages.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damages as she may prove arising from injuries caused by the defendant's dogs on 6 June 2002.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the trial.