Prinsloo NO v Schoeman (672/94) [1996] ZASCA 83 (29 August 1996)

Prinsloo NO v Schoeman (672/94) [1996] ZASCA 83 (29 August 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required for pauperian liability. There was no acceptable evidence that the respondent's cattle acted abnormally or contrary to the nature of their species when they broke through the fence and gate. The circumstances of the escape were unknown, and the possibility of external factors could not be excluded. The conduct of the cattle did not, on the probabilities, amount to contra naturam sui generis. Consequently, the respondent could not be held strictly liable, and the claim was dismissed.

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: Anna Maria Prinsloo NO; Respondent: Jan Andries Nicolaas Schoeman
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 1996
Case Number
672/94
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Eksteen, Olivier, Schutz, Scott
Legal Topics
Pauperian Liability, Negligence, Burden of Proof
Delict Pauperian Liability Negligence Burden of Proof

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Maria Prinsloo NO

Appellant

Jan Andries Nicolaas Schoeman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable under pauperian liability for damages caused by his cattle escaping and causing a fatal accident.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was negligent in allowing his cattle to escape onto the public road.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof that the cattle acted contra naturam sui generis.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required for pauperian liability. There was no acceptable evidence that the respondent's cattle acted abnormally or contrary to the nature of their species when they broke through the fence and gate. The circumstances of the escape were unknown, and the possibility of external factors could not be excluded. The conduct of the cattle did not, on the probabilities, amount to contra naturam sui generis. Consequently, the respondent could not be held strictly liable, and the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.