South Africa Case Law

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock (602/05)

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock (602/05) [2006] ZASCA 174; [2007] 1 All SA 133 (SCA); 2007 (2) SA 83 (SCA) (29 September 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

602/05

Judges

Zulman, Farlam, Conradie, Mlambo, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the indemnity clause, when read in the context of the entire contract and the conditions on the reverse side of the booking form, did not expressly or unambiguously exclude liability for negligent driving on a public road. The reference to 'driving' in the conditions was ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, the ambiguity must be resolved against the appellant. The evidence indicated that the risks intended to be excluded related to adventure activities and not ordinary road transportation. Furthermore, statutory requirements for public lia…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Indemnity
• Exemption Clause Interpretation
• Vicarious Liability
• Public Policy
• Cross Border Transportation
• Contra Proferentem