Thysse v Bekker (1475/2004) [2006] ZAECHC 139; 2007 (3) SA 350 (SEC) (31 October 2006)

Thysse v Bekker (1475/2004) [2006] ZAECHC 139; 2007 (3) SA 350 (SEC) (31 October 2006)

The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dog, which was domesticated and familiar with the child. The evidence established that the dog bit the child during play, without provocation or justification. The expert evidence presented by the defendant was rejected in part due to reliance on unproven facts and a misunderstanding of the legal standard. The court held that the legal test is objective, requiring domesticated animals to suppress instincts to bite, especially in the absence of cruelty or provocation. The dog’s conduct was not what is expected of a well-behaved house pet and thus constituted acting contra naturam sui generis. The defendant was held strictly liable...

Citation
[2006] ZAECHC 139
Parties
Plaintiff: Johan Thysse; Defendant: Philip Roedolf Bekker
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2006
Case Number
1475/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum of Damages to Be Determined Later
Outcome
Defendant held liable under actio de pauperie for damages arising from the dog bite; alternative claim for negligence dismissed.
Judges
RJW Jones
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Contra Naturam Sui Generis, Liability for Domesticated Animals, Negligence, Actio Legis Aquilia
Delict Actio De Pauperie Contra Naturam Sui Generis Liability for Domesticated Animals Negligence Actio Legis Aquilia

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Thysse

Plaintiff

Philip Roedolf Bekker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum of Damages to Be Determined Later

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable under actio de pauperie for injuries caused by his dog biting the plaintiff's minor son.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the dog from biting the child under actio legis aquilia.
  3. 3 Whether the dog acted contra naturam sui generis in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dog, which was domesticated and familiar with the child. The evidence established that the dog bit the child during play, without provocation or justification. The expert evidence presented by the defendant was rejected in part due to reliance on unproven facts and a misunderstanding of the legal standard. The court held that the legal test is objective, requiring domesticated animals to suppress instincts to bite, especially in the absence of cruelty or provocation. The dog’s conduct was not what is expected of a well-behaved house pet and thus constituted acting contra naturam sui generis. The defendant was held strictly liable...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable under actio de pauperie for damages arising from the dog bite; alternative claim for negligence dismissed.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable for such damages as may be proved or agreed upon arising out of the plaintiff’s minor son suffering a dog bite on 30 November 2003.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed party and party costs of the trial on the merits.