Walker v Redhouse (393/05) [2006] ZASCA 96; [2007] 4 All SA 1217 (SCA); 2007 (3) SA 514 (SCA) (31 August 2006)

Walker v Redhouse (393/05) [2006] ZASCA 96; [2007] 4 All SA 1217 (SCA); 2007 (3) SA 514 (SCA) (31 August 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the indemnity signed by Redhouse was clear and unambiguous in excluding liability for any injury sustained in the course of horse riding, regardless of the cause. The court found that the language of the indemnity covered all risks associated with horse riding, including those arising from the horse acting out of character. The court distinguished Lawrence v Kondotel Inns (Pty) Ltd on the basis of different wording and circumstances. Even if the horse had acted contra naturam sui generis, the indemnity constituted a complete defence to the claim. Accordingly, Walker was not liable under the actio de pauperie, and the appeal was upheld.

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Howard Walker; Respondent: Sandra Redhouse
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2006
Case Number
393/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Liability Only, Quantum Separated
Outcome
Appeal upheld; claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mthiyane, Lewis, Malan
Legal Topics
Pauperian Liability, Indemnity Clause, Strict Liability, Contra Naturam Sui Generis
Delict Pauperian Liability Indemnity Clause Strict Liability Contra Naturam Sui Generis

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Walker

Appellant

Sandra Redhouse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court; Liability Only, Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the indemnity signed by the respondent exclude the appellant's liability under the actio de pauperie for injuries sustained while horse riding?
  2. 2 Did the horse act contra naturam sui generis, triggering strict liability?
  3. 3 Is the wording of the indemnity sufficiently broad to cover all risks, including those arising from abnormal behaviour of the horse?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the indemnity signed by Redhouse was clear and unambiguous in excluding liability for any injury sustained in the course of horse riding, regardless of the cause. The court found that the language of the indemnity covered all risks associated with horse riding, including those arising from the horse acting out of character. The court distinguished Lawrence v Kondotel Inns (Pty) Ltd on the basis of different wording and circumstances. Even if the horse had acted contra naturam sui generis, the indemnity constituted a complete defence to the claim. Accordingly, Walker was not liable under the actio de pauperie, and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the court below is set aside.
  • The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.