Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019) [2020] ZASCA 100; [2020] 4 All SA 358 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 59 (SCA) (11 September 2020)

Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019) [2020] ZASCA 100; [2020] 4 All SA 358 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 59 (SCA) (11 September 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence to actio de pauperie should not be extended to exempt the owner from liability where harm is caused by the animal due to the negligence of a third party who does not have custody or control of the animal. The court found that the rationale for strict liability is that, as between the owner and the innocent victim, the owner should bear responsibility for harm caused by their animal. The alleged intruder's involvement was speculative and not proven on a balance of probabilities. The court reaffirmed that absence of fault is not a defence to actio de pauperie, and only direct causation by the victim or a third party in control of the animal...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Christiaan Jacobus van Meyeren; Respondent: Gerald Cloete
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2020
Case Number
636/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Cachalia, Wallis, Mocumie, Ledwaba, Weiner
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Strict Liability, Defences to Animal Owner Liability, Common Law Development, Negligence of Third Party
Delict Actio De Pauperie Strict Liability Defences to Animal Owner Liability Common Law Development Negligence of Third Party

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Jacobus van Meyeren

Appellant

Gerald Cloete

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence to actio de pauperie should be extended to include negligence of a third party not in control of the animal.
  2. 2 Whether the owner of a dog is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal when the harm results from an alleged third party's negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the common law should be developed to broaden exceptions to strict liability under actio de pauperie.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence to actio de pauperie should not be extended to exempt the owner from liability where harm is caused by the animal due to the negligence of a third party who does not have custody or control of the animal. The court found that the rationale for strict liability is that, as between the owner and the innocent victim, the owner should bear responsibility for harm caused by their animal. The alleged intruder's involvement was speculative and not proven on a balance of probabilities. The court reaffirmed that absence of fault is not a defence to actio de pauperie, and only direct causation by the victim or a third party in control of the animal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.