Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014)
Za v Smith and Another (20134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 75; 2015 (4) SA 574 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 288 (SCA) (27 May 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents, as owner and operator of the mountain reserve, were in control of property presenting a risk of serious harm to visitors. The danger posed by concealed ice and the proximity of a sheer precipice was not clear and apparent to the unwary, as evidenced by the direct testimony of witnesses and expert opinion. The respondents failed to take reasonable, cost-effective precautionary measures—such as warning signs, barriers, and induction briefings—which would likely have prevented the incident. The court found that the element of wrongfulness wa…
Source excerpt
- Dependants Claim For Loss Of Support
- Wrongfulness And Negligence
- Causation
- Dangerous Property
- Duty Of Care
- Reasonable Precautionary Measures