Kohl v Grobbelaar (4962/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 38 (22 May 2018)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
4962/2017
Judge
M.J. Lowe
The court found that Reece, being under 10 years old, was doli et culpae incapax and could not be held culpable for trespass or provocation. The defendant failed to prove that Reece's conduct constituted provocation sufficient to exclude liability under actio de pauperie, as merely sitting on the boundary wall did not amount to substantial negligence or imprudence. The dog acted contra naturam by attacking a child who had not provoked it. Regarding lawful presence, the court held that Reece's position on the wall did not render him unlawfully present, especially given his incapacity and the l…
Cole v Pieterse N.O (11599/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 394 (7 October 2013)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
11599/12
Judge
Reyneke
The court found that the plaintiff was aware her unannounced entry would provoke the dogs, as they always barked and rushed at visitors. The plaintiff was not expressly prohibited from entering, but her conduct in entering without knocking was considered rude and unacceptable. The evidence did not establish that Saartjie acted contra naturam sui generis; rather, her behaviour was consistent with her breed and territorial instincts. The defendant discharged the onus of showing that the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk and that the dog was provoked. The plaintiff failed to prove, on a ba…
Fourie v Naranjo and Another (A41/2007) [2007] ZAWCHC 17; [2007] 4 All SA 1152 (C); 2008 (1) SA 192 (C) (2 May 2007)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A41/2007
Judges
Cleaver, Thring
The High Court dismissed an appeal in a dog-bite delict case, confirming actio de pauperie liability and rejecting defences of volenti, negligence, and unlawful presence.