Pro Tempo v Van der Merwe (20853/2014) [2016] ZASCA 39; 2018 (1) SA 181 (SCA) (24 March 2016)

Pro Tempo v Van der Merwe (20853/2014) [2016] ZASCA 39; 2018 (1) SA 181 (SCA) (24 March 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant school created a dangerous situation by placing steel rods in a playground where children, including those with learning disabilities and known impulsivity, regularly played. The risk of harm was foreseeable, and the school failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injury. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the incident was so extraordinary as to exclude liability on public policy grounds. Applying established principles of negligence and wrongfulness, the court found that the school owed a duty of care to its learners and breached that duty. The appeal was dismissed, and the school was held liable for damages.

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 39
Parties
Appellant: Pro Tempo Akademie CC; Respondent: C S van der Merwe obo H van der Merwe
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2016
Case Number
20853/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Navsa, Wallis, Saldulker, Zondi, Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence, Liability of Schools, Wrongfulness, Child Safety
Delict Negligence Duty of Care Contributory Negligence Liability of Schools Wrongfulness Child Safety

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pro Tempo Akademie CC

Appellant

C S van der Merwe obo H van der Merwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant school was negligent in erecting steel rods on the playground, resulting in injury to a learner.
  2. 2 Whether public and legal policy considerations exclude liability for the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the injured child constituted contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant school created a dangerous situation by placing steel rods in a playground where children, including those with learning disabilities and known impulsivity, regularly played. The risk of harm was foreseeable, and the school failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injury. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the incident was so extraordinary as to exclude liability on public policy grounds. Applying established principles of negligence and wrongfulness, the court found that the school owed a duty of care to its learners and breached that duty. The appeal was dismissed, and the school was held liable for damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.