Stedall and Another v Aspeling and Another (1326/2016) [2017] ZASCA 172; 2018 (2) SA 75 (SCA) (1 December 2017)

Stedall and Another v Aspeling and Another (1326/2016) [2017] ZASCA 172; 2018 (2) SA 75 (SCA) (1 December 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to establish the element of wrongfulness required for delictual liability. The child was brought to the appellants' home under the supervision of her mother, who was aware of the swimming pool and its potential dangers. The law does not require a homeowner to provide greater supervision than the parent, nor does it impose an absolute duty to secure every potential danger on the property. The omission to secure the pool gate was not wrongful in the circumstances, as public and legal policy do not demand liability where a child guest is under parental care. The respondents also failed to establish negligence, as a reasonable...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 172
Parties
Appellant: Geoffrey Stedall; Appellant: Linda Stedall; Respondent: Clint Patrick Aspeling; Respondent: Manuela Waltraut Ursula Aspeling NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2017
Case Number
1326/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Cachalia, Leach, Petse, Mocumie, Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Negligent Omission, Wrongfulness, Parental Supervision, Liability of Landowner, Apportionment of Blame
Delict Negligent Omission Wrongfulness Parental Supervision Liability of Landowner Apportionment of Blame

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Stedall

Appellant

Linda Stedall

Appellant

Clint Patrick Aspeling

Respondent

Manuela Waltraut Ursula Aspeling NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' omission to secure the swimming pool gate was wrongful and negligent in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether a landowner is liable for harm to a child guest under parental supervision when the parent is momentarily distracted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents established the necessary elements of delictual liability, including wrongfulness and negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to establish the element of wrongfulness required for delictual liability. The child was brought to the appellants' home under the supervision of her mother, who was aware of the swimming pool and its potential dangers. The law does not require a homeowner to provide greater supervision than the parent, nor does it impose an absolute duty to secure every potential danger on the property. The omission to secure the pool gate was not wrongful in the circumstances, as public and legal policy do not demand liability where a child guest is under parental care. The respondents also failed to establish negligence, as a reasonable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld, with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.'