Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
E.M and Another v Eskom Holdings Limited (39072/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 285 (17 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed a claim for fatal electrocution, holding that section 25 of the Electricity Regulation Act did not apply to vandalised power lines.
S.R obo Z.R v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng (41584/18) [2024] ZAGPJHC 51 (26 January 2024)
The High Court found the health department liable for negligent labour management that caused hypoxic ischaemic injury to a newborn and dismissed a prescription defence.
Pamana and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (437/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 172 (15 May 2023)
The court found that the first plaintiff and the deceased were employed as correctional officials, were at their place of employment, and were performing their duties when the incident occurred. Their work environment was inherently dangerous, and they were exposed daily to risks such as attacks by inmates. The evidence established a causal connection between the incident and their employment, making the risk of such attacks inherent and incidental to their duties. The plaintiffs had claimed and received compensation under COIDA, confirming the applicability of the Act. The court held that se…
Source excerpt
Nel v Government of South Africa and Another (3861/2016) [2021] ZAECGHC 105 (16 November 2021)
High Court judgment on veldfire damage: the court held the first defendant liable after fires spread from its farm, applying the statutory presumption of negligence.
T M v Road Accident Fund (2018/6687) [2019] ZAGPJHC 546 (13 December 2019)
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries sustained when she was pushed out of the moving hijacked taxi arose from the driving of a motor vehicle as required by section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The court relied on precedent establishing that injuries resulting from being ejected from a moving vehicle are causally connected to the driving. However, the gunshot wound was found to be unrelated to the driving and thus excluded from the Fund's liability. The court further held that, despite discrepancies between the pleadings and the evidence, the defendant was not prejudiced, and…
Source excerpt
B v Road Accident Fund (41110/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 543 (8 July 2016)
The High Court held that starting a vehicle, engaging first gear and releasing the clutch constituted driving under the Road Accident Fund Act.
MEC For The Department of Health, Free State Province v D (924/2013) [2014] ZASCA 167; 2015 (1) SA 182 (SCA); [2015] 1 All SA 20 (SCA); [2014] 12 BLLR 1155 (SCA); (2014) 35 ILJ 3301 (SCA) (8 October 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the rape of the respondent, a doctor on duty at a hospital, did not arise out of or in the course of her employment as contemplated by section 35(1) of COIDA. The risk of rape is not incidental or inherent to the employment of a paediatric registrar, and the causal connection required by the Act was absent. The attack was perpetrated by an outsider with no connection to the hospital or the respondent's work, and the motive for the assault bore no relation to her employment. The court rejected the argument that all injuries sustained at the workplace are c…
Source excerpt
Gatlet v Road Accident Fund (3481/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 47 (27 February 2014)
The court found that the insured driver, by requesting his passenger to alight from the vehicle at a place where it was forbidden and during heavy traffic, created a dangerous situation for other road users. The insured driver should have foreseen the risk of an accident resulting from his actions. The opening of the door by the passenger was initiated by the insured driver and was wrongful, establishing a causal connection between the driving of the vehicle and the plaintiff's injuries. However, the plaintiff also contributed to the accident by riding his motorbike between cars in contravent…
Source excerpt
De Necker v MEC for the Department of Health, Free State Province (2399/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 178; 2014 (3) SA 49 (FB) (23 October 2013)
The court held that the incident in which the plaintiff was assaulted and raped while on duty was not an 'accident' as contemplated by section 35 of COIDA. Although the incident was unexpected, it was intentional and deliberate, which does not fall within the ordinary or judicial meaning of 'accident' under COIDA. Furthermore, there was no causal connection between the plaintiff's employment and the attack, as the perpetrator was not authorized to be on the premises and the motive for the attack was unrelated to the plaintiff's duties. The risk of such an assault was not a natural incidence o…
Source excerpt
Antonie v Slatter (30944/08) [2012] ZAGPJHC 90 (11 May 2012)
The court found that the oral agreement between the parties constituted a contract of commodatum, with no express or tacit indemnity in favour of the defendant. The defendant, as borrower, bore the risk for damage to the BMW. The defendant failed to return the vehicle in the same condition, and the evidence established that the collision occurred while the defendant was driving. The defendant did not testify or provide an explanation for the collision, justifying a negative inference. The plaintiff's witnesses were credible, and the evidence supported both the contractual and delictual claims…
Source excerpt
Explore more
