Saayman v Visser (411/2007) [2008] ZASCA 71; [2008] 4 All SA 245 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 312 (SCA) (30 May 2008)

Saayman v Visser (411/2007) [2008] ZASCA 71; [2008] 4 All SA 245 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 312 (SCA) (30 May 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the risk of danger in employing an armed security guard was reasonably foreseeable, the homeowner, Mr Visser, acted reasonably by contracting a security company that appeared reputable and by enquiring about the guard's training. There was no evidence that the security company lacked expertise or operated unlawfully from the homeowner's perspective. The court found that requiring further steps, such as warning signs or specific instructions about ammunition, would impose an unreasonable burden on homeowners. The harm suffered by the appellant was not shown to be preventable by the suggested measures, especially given the state of the...

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Hendrik Saayman; Respondent: Christiaan Andreas Visser
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2008
Case Number
411/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kimberley High Court; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; homeowner not liable for damages.
Judges
Navsa, Ponnan, Snyders
Legal Topics
Liability for Independent Contractor, Negligence, Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Non Delegable Duties
Delict Liability for Independent Contractor Negligence Duty of Care Personal Injury Non Delegable Duties

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Hendrik Saayman

Appellant

Christiaan Andreas Visser

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kimberley High Court; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the homeowner is liable for the unlawful shooting of a trespasser by an armed security guard stationed at his premises.
  2. 2 Whether the employment of an armed guard in a residential area constitutes negligence by the homeowner.
  3. 3 Whether the homeowner owed a duty of care to trespassers and took reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the risk of danger in employing an armed security guard was reasonably foreseeable, the homeowner, Mr Visser, acted reasonably by contracting a security company that appeared reputable and by enquiring about the guard's training. There was no evidence that the security company lacked expertise or operated unlawfully from the homeowner's perspective. The court found that requiring further steps, such as warning signs or specific instructions about ammunition, would impose an unreasonable burden on homeowners. The harm suffered by the appellant was not shown to be preventable by the suggested measures, especially given the state of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; homeowner not liable for damages.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.