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
Stone v Ivanisevic and Another (4170/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 419; [2025] 1 All SA 751 (WCC) (12 December 2024)
High Court delict case over a water polo punch: the first defendant was liable, but the school was not. The court found no prior record and no breach by the school.
Brews v Member of the Executive Council for Public Works, Roads and Transport: North West Province (115/2020) [2023] ZANWHC 83 (20 June 2023)
The High Court held the province 100% liable after a motorcycle crash linked to a badly maintained road and inadequately placed warning signs.
Radebe v Passanger Rail Agency of South Africa (2018/2844) [2023] ZAGPJHC 269 (27 March 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the defendant was negligent and that his injuries resulted from a foreseeable event which the defendant could have prevented. The evidence from the train guard and driver was accepted as credible, showing that the train doors were fully functional and operated correctly throughout the journey, including at Dube Station. The plaintiff's version was found improbable, as it was unlikely that only he would be injured if a crowd had pushed him out. The defendant had taken reasonable safety measures, and there was no ev…
Source excerpt
Nienaaber N.O and Others v Nelson Attorneys and Another (2645/2011) [2022] ZAECPEHC 4 (18 January 2022)
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the element of wrongfulness required for delictual liability. The evidence established that the plaintiffs, particularly Van den Berg, initiated and negotiated the development transaction before Nelson Attorneys' involvement, understood the risks, and accepted the terms, including the security offered. The expert evidence was rejected as factually uninformed and irrelevant to the pleaded duty. Nelson Attorneys fulfilled the specific duties pleaded, and there was no evidence of negligent breach in the conveyancing process. The colla…
Source excerpt
Pick 'n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Pillay (900/2020) [2021] ZASCA 125 (29 September 2021)
The court found that the risk of harm from the automated boom gate was reasonably foreseeable, particularly given its location adjacent to a frequently used pedestrian route and the absence of warning signs at the time of the incident. The appellant's reliance on controlled tests and the lightweight nature of the boom did not negate the risk, as the tests did not account for impacts to the head or face. The fact that safety measures, such as warning signs and manual operation, were implemented only after the incident further demonstrated that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to pr…
Source excerpt
Befile v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (3868/2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 11 (28 January 2020)
The High Court held the Minister liable after finding prison officials failed to prevent a foreseeable inmate assault using padlocks as weapons.
Oosthuizen and Others v Vorster (1491/2016) [2019] ZAECGHC 35 (26 March 2019)
A landowner was held liable for a veldfire that started after angle grinding in a shed and spread to neighbouring farms. The court found negligence and applied the statutory presumption.
Mhlongo v Passenger Rail Agency (20594/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 353 (15 December 2016)
The court held that PRASA is liable for injuries sustained by the applicant when she was pushed out of a stationary train with open doors between stations. The situation was analogous to moving train cases where open doors create a foreseeable risk of harm. The court found the applicant's evidence credible and corroborated, establishing that the doors were open throughout the journey and that PRASA failed in its duty to close them. The risk of injury from open doors in a train stopped between stations is significant and foreseeable, and PRASA's omission constituted negligence. Factual and leg…
Source excerpt
Muller v Lawrence (15279/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 744 (24 August 2016)
The High Court dismissed a delict claim after finding the plaintiff failed to prove a loose tile, negligence, or foreseeability of harm by the defendant.
F v Minister of Police (3220/12) [2016] ZAECPEHC 4 (16 February 2016)
The court found that the plaintiff's version was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility, especially regarding whether he warned the police of the threat against him. The documentary evidence, including cell registers and police testimony, indicated regular cell visits and opportunities for detainees to raise complaints, which the plaintiff did not utilize. The court held that the police were not aware of any specific threat to the plaintiff and had taken reasonable precautionary measures by conducting regular cell visits and asking for complaints. The failure to release the plaint…
Source excerpt
Explore more
