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
Van Wyk v Lambrechts (CA & R 12/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 12 (9 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a motor collision with a cow, finding the livestock owner negligent for not taking further steps to prevent escape.
Rautenbach v Grundlingh (55926/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 364 (18 May 2022)
High Court delict claim arising from a dog attack at the defendant’s home. The court found the defendant liable and rejected volenti non fit iniuria.
Mtokwana v Trollip (564/2015) [2021] ZAECMHC 42 (30 November 2021)
The court held the defendant liable under actio de pauperie for injuries caused by his dog, finding the plaintiff proved ownership, causation, and the dog’s contra naturam conduct.
Schmidt and Smith and Another (85495/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 318 (2 May 2018)
The court found that the first defendant admitted ownership of the boerbull, a domesticated animal, and that the dog acted contrary to the nature of domesticated animals by attacking the plaintiff. There was no evidence that the plaintiff provoked the dog, nor that he acted in any way to incite the attack. The defence of provocation was dismissed as highly improbable and unsupported by evidence. The dog was let out of the garage due to an employee's mistaken belief that the plaintiff had left, which led to the attack. The court held that strict liability under the actio de pauperie applies, a…
Source excerpt
L.M v Tati (1111/16) [2018] ZAECMHC 10 (20 February 2018)
The High Court held the defendant liable after finding that the plaintiff proved ownership of the dogs that attacked his son under action de pauperie.
Makhubela v Deyzel (94956/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 130 (28 March 2017)
The High Court held the dog owner liable under actio de pauperie after her dogs bit the plaintiff and her child, rejecting a provocation defence.
Barnard v Ras (23443/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1053 (20 December 2016)
The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dog was provoked by the child. The evidence of Ms Baloyi, who witnessed the incident, was accepted as credible and consistent, and her denial of provocation was preferred over the defendant's version, which was found to be embellished and unsupported. The requirements for liability under actio de pauperie were satisfied: the defendant owned the dog, it was a domesticated animal, the child was lawfully present, and the dog acted contra naturam suam by biting the child without provocation. The defendant's altern…
Source excerpt
Cole v Pieterse N.O (11599/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 394 (7 October 2013)
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…
Source excerpt
Thysse v Bekker (1475/2004) [2006] ZAECHC 139; 2007 (3) SA 350 (SEC) (31 October 2006)
The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dog, which was domesticated and familiar with the child. The evidence established that the dog bit the child during play, without provocation or justification. The expert evidence presented by the defendant was rejected in part due to reliance on unproven facts and a misunderstanding of the legal standard. The court held that the legal test is objective, requiring domesticated animals to suppress instincts to bite, especially in the absence of cruelty or provocation. The dog’s conduct was not what is expected of a well-behaved house pet…
Source excerpt
Pienaar v Jacobus and Another (1634/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 125 (26 August 2004)
The court found that the defendant was the owner of the dogs and that their attack on the plaintiff was contra naturam sui generis, as it was not expected of well-behaved dogs to attack a person lawfully present on the premises without provocation. The plaintiff was present with the defendant's consent and had no knowledge of any risk posed by the dogs, nor did she see any warning sign. The defendant failed to prove any defence based on third-party fault or consent to risk. The court held that strict liability under the actio de pauperie applied, and the defendant was liable for damages resul…
Source excerpt
Explore more
