Roux v Hattingh (636/11) [2012] ZASCA 132; 2012 (6) SA 428 (SCA) (27 September 2012)

Roux v Hattingh (636/11) [2012] ZASCA 132; 2012 (6) SA 428 (SCA) (27 September 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that the appellant intentionally inflicted serious neck injuries on the respondent during a rugby match by executing a pre-planned manoeuvre coded 'jack-knife', which contravened the rules and spirit of the game. The court found that the trial court's credibility and factual findings were unimpeachable, supported by direct eyewitness evidence and objective facts. The appellant's conduct was deliberate, extremely dangerous, and a serious violation of the rules, placing it beyond the risks normally accepted in rugby. Public and legal policy require such conduct to be stigmatised as wrongful, and the defence of consent does not...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 132
Parties
Appellant: Alex Roux; Respondent: Ryand Karel Hattingh
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2012
Case Number
636/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Brand, Theron, Pillay, Southwood, Plasket
Legal Topics
Intentional Infliction of Injury, Wrongfulness in Sport, Consent and Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Causation, Credibility Findings, Sports Liability
Delict Intentional Infliction of Injury Wrongfulness in Sport Consent and Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Causation Credibility Findings Sports Liability

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Roux

Appellant

Ryand Karel Hattingh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's factual and credibility findings regarding the intentional infliction of injury by the appellant can be assailed.
  2. 2 Whether all of the respondent's injuries were caused by the appellant's conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct was wrongful in the context of a rugby game.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that the appellant intentionally inflicted serious neck injuries on the respondent during a rugby match by executing a pre-planned manoeuvre coded 'jack-knife', which contravened the rules and spirit of the game. The court found that the trial court's credibility and factual findings were unimpeachable, supported by direct eyewitness evidence and objective facts. The appellant's conduct was deliberate, extremely dangerous, and a serious violation of the rules, placing it beyond the risks normally accepted in rugby. Public and legal policy require such conduct to be stigmatised as wrongful, and the defence of consent does not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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