Twylight Funeral Home v Kiewiedo (588/1992) [1994] ZASCA 71 (23 May 1994)

Twylight Funeral Home v Kiewiedo (588/1992) [1994] ZASCA 71 (23 May 1994)

The court found that Bonters, the driver employed by the appellant, was negligent in driving the hearse at excessive speed and applying the brakes after a tyre burst, which directly caused the accident and the respondent's injuries. The trial court's credibility findings in favour of the respondent and her witnesses were not challenged on appeal and were supported by the probabilities. The court further held that the appellant, through its owner Twayie, had given permission for the respondent and her companions to travel in the hearse, and that Bonters acted within the scope of his employment when transporting them. Even if Bonters had acted contrary to instructions, his conduct was...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Twylight Funeral Home; Respondent: Lena Kiewiedo
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 1994
Case Number
588/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
H J O Van Heerden, Kumleben, Olivier
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Scope of Employment
Delict Vicarious Liability Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Scope of Employment

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Twylight Funeral Home

Appellant

Lena Kiewiedo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Orange Free State Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver, Bonters, was negligent in causing the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is vicariously liable for the driver's conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the driver acted within the scope of his employment when transporting the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Bonters, the driver employed by the appellant, was negligent in driving the hearse at excessive speed and applying the brakes after a tyre burst, which directly caused the accident and the respondent's injuries. The trial court's credibility findings in favour of the respondent and her witnesses were not challenged on appeal and were supported by the probabilities. The court further held that the appellant, through its owner Twayie, had given permission for the respondent and her companions to travel in the hearse, and that Bonters acted within the scope of his employment when transporting them. Even if Bonters had acted contrary to instructions, his conduct was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.