Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security (132/09) [2010] ZASCA 26; 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 34 (SCA) (25 March 2010)

Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security (132/09) [2010] ZASCA 26; 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 34 (SCA) (25 March 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the security guard in allowing the removal of the truck was not wrongful, and Pha Phama was not vicariously liable for the loss. The contract between Pha Phama and Lone Rock excluded liability for loss or damage, and public policy does not require the imposition of a delictual duty to third parties in these circumstances. Allowing such claims would undermine contractual arrangements and expose security providers to limitless liability. The exclusion clauses were clear and unambiguous, and the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the guard. Accordingly, Viv's Tippers had no claim in delict against Pha Phama.

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 26
Parties
Appellant: Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk; Respondent: Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2010
Case Number
132/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Van Heerden, Cachalia, Tshiqi, Theron
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Pure Economic Loss, Exclusion of Liability, Wrongfulness, Contractual Matrix
Delict Commercial and Corporate Vicarious Liability Pure Economic Loss Exclusion of Liability Wrongfulness Contractual Matrix

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk

Appellant

Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a security provider owes a delictual duty to a third party owner of property stolen from premises it guards under contract with another.
  2. 2 Whether exclusion clauses in the contract between the security provider and the site owner preclude liability to third parties.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the security guard in allowing removal of the truck was wrongful and/or negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the security guard in allowing the removal of the truck was not wrongful, and Pha Phama was not vicariously liable for the loss. The contract between Pha Phama and Lone Rock excluded liability for loss or damage, and public policy does not require the imposition of a delictual duty to third parties in these circumstances. Allowing such claims would undermine contractual arrangements and expose security providers to limitless liability. The exclusion clauses were clear and unambiguous, and the evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the guard. Accordingly, Viv's Tippers had no claim in delict against Pha Phama.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.