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
W.M v MEC: Department of Education, Northern Cape and Another (1502/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 56 (7 October 2022)
The High Court held the Department of Education vicariously liable after a school employee left drain cleaner accessible, causing an 11-year-old learner chemical burns.
April on behalf of a Minor v Road Accident Fund (30703/18) [2021] ZAGPJHC 478 (29 September 2021)
Default judgment in a RAF claim for a minor pedestrian hit by an unknown driver, with damages awarded for future loss of earnings and general damages.
N v Member of the Executive Council for Education Gauteng Province (42538/2012) [2016] ZAGPJHC 170 (17 June 2016)
The court found that the school and its staff owed a duty of care to the plaintiff's minor son, a grade R learner. The evidence established that the school failed to take adequate and reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, given the age and vulnerability of the learners and the risks posed by the jungle gym. The school's preventative measures were insufficient, and the supervision ratio was inadequate. The defendant did not demonstrate that all reasonable precautions were taken. The incident was foreseeable, and the school breached its duty of care. The defendant is liable for all prov…
Source excerpt
Mtshwane v Road Accident Fund (1071/05, ECJ74) [2006] ZAECHC 74 (12 December 2006)
The court held that a nine-year-old child was presumed culpae incapax and the Road Accident Fund failed to rebut that presumption. The insured driver was found solely negligent.
Mgcina v Attorneys Insurance Indemnity Fund and Others (03/27289) [2005] ZAGPHC 382 (24 August 2005)
High Court found the insured driver negligent in a collision involving an eight-year-old pedestrian, held the child was not culpae capax, and dismissed the counterclaim and joinder.
Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks (262/2004) [2005] ZASCA 46; [2005] 3 All SA 415 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 503 (SCA) (27 May 2005)
Eskom failed to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence under the Electricity Act, as the anti-climbing device installed on the pylon was inadequate and could be easily dismantled without tools, failing to provide the required protection. The court found that a reasonable person would have ensured the device could not be bypassed so simply, especially given the foreseeability of children climbing pylons. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court held that the injured child, J., was culpae incapax at the time of the incident. His conduct in attempting to touch the insulators was impulsive an…
Source excerpt
Explore more
