Van Drimmelen & Partners v Gowar and Others (519/2002) [2003] ZASCA 121; [2004] 1 All SA 175 (SCA) (24 November 2003)

Van Drimmelen & Partners v Gowar and Others (519/2002) [2003] ZASCA 121; [2004] 1 All SA 175 (SCA) (24 November 2003)

The court held that at the time of the collisions, Mr Du Randt was engaged in his own private business and personal interests, specifically travelling to his home to wash, change, and consult his schedule before proceeding to a social engagement. Although he intended to communicate a work-related decision to colleagues after consulting his schedule, this was peripheral to the employer's business and depended on his personal convenience. The dominant purpose of his journey was personal, and the evidence did not establish that he was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the collisions occurred. Therefore, the appellant is not vicariously liable for Du Randt's negligence.

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: Drs Pierre Van Drimmelen & Partners; Respondent: Hayley Gowar; Respondent: Beverley Anne Aucamp; Respondent: The Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2003
Case Number
519/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo; Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. The orders of the court a quo are set aside and replaced.
Judges
Zulman, Farlam, Heher
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Course and Scope of Employment, Negligence, Personal Convenience Vs Employer Business
Delict Vicarious Liability Course and Scope of Employment Negligence Personal Convenience Vs Employer Business

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drs Pierre Van Drimmelen & Partners

Appellant

Hayley Gowar

Respondent

Beverley Anne Aucamp

Respondent

The Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo; Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the appellant vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr Du Randt at the time of the collisions?
  2. 2 Was Mr Du Randt acting within the course and scope of his employment with the appellant when the collisions occurred?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that at the time of the collisions, Mr Du Randt was engaged in his own private business and personal interests, specifically travelling to his home to wash, change, and consult his schedule before proceeding to a social engagement. Although he intended to communicate a work-related decision to colleagues after consulting his schedule, this was peripheral to the employer's business and depended on his personal convenience. The dominant purpose of his journey was personal, and the evidence did not establish that he was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the collisions occurred. Therefore, the appellant is not vicariously liable for Du Randt's negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. The orders of the court a quo are set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first defendant was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with the second defendant at the time when the two collisions occurred.
  • The first and second plaintiffs and the first and third defendants are ordered to pay the second defendant's costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.