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 Deventer v Botha (1523/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 110 (4 July 2019)
The High Court held a dog owner liable under actio de pauperie after a boerboel attacked the deceased and the resulting wounds caused his death.
Kohl v Grobbelaar (4962/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 38 (22 May 2018)
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…
Source excerpt
Van der Westhuizen v Burger (204/2017) [2017] ZASCA 178; 2018 (2) SA 87 (SCA) (1 December 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that provocation defeated the claim arising from an ostrich chase, and dismissed the respondent’s damages claim.
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
Explore more
