Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 75; 2015 (4) SA 574 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 288 (SCA) (27 May 2015)

Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 75; 2015 (4) SA 574 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 288 (SCA) (27 May 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, as owner and operator of the mountain reserve, were in control of property presenting a risk of serious harm to visitors. The danger posed by concealed ice and the proximity of a sheer precipice was not clear and apparent to the unwary, as evidenced by the direct testimony of witnesses and expert opinion. The respondents failed to take reasonable, cost-effective precautionary measures—such as warning signs, barriers, and induction briefings—which would likely have prevented the incident. The court found that the element of wrongfulness was established, as public and legal policy supported the imposition of liability in these...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 75
Parties
Appellant: Federica Za; Respondent: André Frederik Smith; Respondent: Matroosberg Reservaat CC
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Case Number
20134/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal dismissed.
Judges
Brand, Cachalia, Petse, Fourie, Mayat
Legal Topics
Dependants Claim for Loss of Support, Wrongfulness and Negligence, Causation, Dangerous Property, Duty of Care, Reasonable Precautionary Measures
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Dependants Claim for Loss of Support Wrongfulness and Negligence Causation Dangerous Property Duty of Care +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Federica Za

Appellant

André Frederik Smith

Respondent

Matroosberg Reservaat CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents, as owner and entity in control of the mountain resort, were delictually liable for the death of the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the danger was clear and apparent or required specific warnings and precautions.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, as owner and operator of the mountain reserve, were in control of property presenting a risk of serious harm to visitors. The danger posed by concealed ice and the proximity of a sheer precipice was not clear and apparent to the unwary, as evidenced by the direct testimony of witnesses and expert opinion. The respondents failed to take reasonable, cost-effective precautionary measures—such as warning signs, barriers, and induction briefings—which would likely have prevented the incident. The court found that the element of wrongfulness was established, as public and legal policy supported the imposition of liability in these...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel, against the respondents jointly and severally.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced by a declaration that the respondents are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the plaintiff in her personal capacity and as mother and natural guardian of her three minor children in such sum as may be agreed or determined in due course.