Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another (12/97) [1999] ZASCA 87; [2000] 1 All SA 128 (A); 2000 (1) SA 827 (SCA) (26 November 1999)

Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another (12/97) [1999] ZASCA 87; [2000] 1 All SA 128 (A); 2000 (1) SA 827 (SCA) (26 November 1999)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although fire in the cold store was a general possibility, the specific risk of a fire caused by an external source such as a distress flare landing on the roof and igniting the fibreglass gutter was not reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person in the position of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] ZASCA 87
Parties
Appellant: Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation; Respondent: Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Transnet Limited t/a Portnet
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1999
Case Number
12/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division on Liability Only; Quantum of Damages Stood Over
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Scott, Smalberger, Howie, Marais, Streicher
Legal Topics
Negligence, Culpa, Wrongfulness, Occupier Liability, Fire Damage, Causation
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligence Culpa Wrongfulness Occupier Liability Fire Damage +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

South Atlantic Islands Development Corporation

Appellant

Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Transnet Limited t/a Portnet

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division on Liability Only; Quantum of Damages Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were negligent in failing to install a sprinkler system in the cold store.
  2. 2 Whether the danger of fire from an external source was reasonably foreseeable by the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents or their employees constituted actionable negligence giving rise to liability for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, although fire in the cold store was a general possibility, the specific risk of a fire caused by an external source such as a distress flare landing on the roof and igniting the fibreglass gutter was not reasonably foreseeable by a reasonable person in the position of the respondents. The evidence established that neither the consultants nor the port engineer were aware of the practice of firing flares, and even if they had been, the likelihood of a flare causing such a fire was so remote as not to warrant precautionary measures. The court found that the respondents were not negligent in failing to install a sprinkler system or to take other...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.