South Africa Case Law

Stedall and Another v Aspeling and Another (1326/2016)

Stedall and Another v Aspeling and Another (1326/2016) [2017] ZASCA 172; 2018 (2) SA 75 (SCA) (1 December 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1326/2016

Judges

Cachalia, Leach, Petse, Mocumie, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to establish the element of wrongfulness required for delictual liability. The child was brought to the appellants' home under the supervision of her mother, who was aware of the swimming pool and its potential dangers. The law does not require a homeowner to provide greater supervision than the parent, nor does it impose an absolute duty to secure every potential danger on the property. The omission to secure the pool gate was not wrongful in the circumstances, as public and legal policy do not demand liability where a child guest…

Source excerpt

• Negligent Omission
• Wrongfulness
• Parental Supervision
• Liability Of Landowner
• Apportionment Of Blame

Van Vuuren v Ethekwini Municipality (7099/2012)

Van Vuuren v Ethekwini Municipality (7099/2012) [2016] ZAKZDHC 8 (19 February 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7099/2012

Judge

Steyn

The court found that the defendant municipality did not owe a legal duty to supervise or control children using its water slides in circumstances where the parent was present and able to exercise parental supervision. The structure of the slide was found to be safe, and there was no evidence that the harm suffered by the plaintiff's child would have been prevented by the presence of a supervisor. The court held that imposing such a duty on the municipality would create an unsustainable burden and was not supported by public policy or the legal convictions of the community. The primary duty of…

Source excerpt

• Duty Of Care
• Public Liability
• Parental Supervision
• Wrongfulness
• Negligence
• Municipal Facilities

Strydom v Strecker and Another (3037/2012)

Strydom v Strecker and Another (3037/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 631; 2015 (6) SA 356 (GP) (10 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3037/2012

Judge

N Kollapen

The court found that the defendants owed a legal duty to take reasonable steps to protect B from harm posed by the fish pond, as the pond constituted a source of danger. However, the defendants had warned both the plaintiff and his ex-wife about the danger, and both parents were aware of the risk, especially given B's increased mobility. The court held that the warning constituted a reasonable step that discharged the defendants' legal duty. Imposing a higher duty of care on the defendants than on B's own parents would be unreasonable. The court concluded that the defendants were not negligen…

Source excerpt

• Duty Of Care
• Wrongfulness
• Negligence
• Best Interests Of Child
• Premises Liability
• Parental Supervision

M.P and Another v Big Sky Trading 489 CC t/a Mike's Kitchen (5894/2013)

M.P and Another v Big Sky Trading 489 CC t/a Mike's Kitchen (5894/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 379 (12 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

5894/2013

Judge

Jansen

High Court held a restaurant was not delictually liable for a child’s trampoline injury where it had taken reasonable safety steps and parents ignored the rules.

• Occupier Liability
• Duty Of Care
• Parental Supervision
• Wrongfulness
• Negligence
• Personal Injury