Van Heerden and Another v Member of the Executive Council, Health North West (593/2018) [2021] ZANWHC 60; 2021 (6) SA 197 (NWM) (12 August 2021)

Van Heerden and Another v Member of the Executive Council, Health North West (593/2018) [2021] ZANWHC 60; 2021 (6) SA 197 (NWM) (12 August 2021)

The court found that the defendant, through its employees, did not act negligently or wrongfully. The bus driver and security guards performed their duties with care and acted reasonably in the circumstances. There was no indication that the unknown female posed a danger before the attack, and neither the driver nor the security guards could have foreseen the harm. The actions taken by the bus driver to call for security assistance were reasonable, and there was nothing more that could have been done to prevent the assault. Consequently, no case was made out against the defendant, and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 60
Parties
Plaintiff: Heilie Philippina Van Heerden; Plaintiff: Sanette Van Heerden; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council, Health North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
593/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
T Djaje
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Foreseeability, Duty of Care, Wrongfulness
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Negligence Foreseeability Duty of Care Wrongfulness

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heilie Philippina Van Heerden

Plaintiff

Sanette Van Heerden

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council, Health North West

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a legal duty to prevent harm to the first plaintiff while she was in the hospital bus.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's employees, including the bus driver and security guards, acted negligently or wrongfully in failing to prevent the assault.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can be held vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, through its employees, did not act negligently or wrongfully. The bus driver and security guards performed their duties with care and acted reasonably in the circumstances. There was no indication that the unknown female posed a danger before the attack, and neither the driver nor the security guards could have foreseen the harm. The actions taken by the bus driver to call for security assistance were reasonable, and there was nothing more that could have been done to prevent the assault. Consequently, no case was made out against the defendant, and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.