Delict and Civil Claims

“I am disgraced, impeached, and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander’s venomed spear.”
(William Shakespeare)

Here’s another warning from our courts to think twice before publishing anything defamatory, even if you genuinely believe it to be true.

To escape liability, you must show that you fall under one or other of the legal defences available to anyone sued for defamation – as a recent High Court decision illustrates perfectly.

A R500m bribe and a restaurant dinner

• A company director, in dispute with a government department over his company’s contract with it, went public with claims that a government minister was involved in soliciting a R500m bribe from him.
• Critically, he had no actual proof of the truth of these allegations, which he said were made to him by two unnamed informants over a restaurant dinner.
• Nonetheless, he spread these (hotly denied) claims far and wide – to his more than 12,000 Twitter (now “X”) followers, as well as to the listeners/viewers of a podcast, a radio interview, and two TV interviews.

Sued for R1m: “But I thought it was true”

The minister, outraged by these slanderous allegations, sued for R1m in damages.

• The director countered that he had never intended to defame the minister, that his statements amounted to “fair comment” and that he reasonably believed that his two informants were telling the truth.
• The Court was unconvinced, finding both that the statements were defamatory and that the director had made them with the necessary “intent to injure”, having taken no steps to verify the information given to him.
• Secondly, held the Court, the director could not rely on the “fair comment” defence, both because his allegations were statements of fact rather than “comment”, and because he spread them “with reckless indifference as to whether they were actually true.”
• Finally, the defence of “truth and public interest” requires that you prove both that a statement is “substantially true” and that it is published in the public interest. For the purposes of this defence, belief that the statement is true isn’t enough – it must actually be true. In this case, the director had relied on hearsay statements and had no proof to substantiate them.
• With no proof of the allegations, the Court concluded that the minister was “a victim of a vicious assault on his dignity”, and the director “in order to safeguard his commercial interests, [had] thrown unsubstantiated accusations widely, to put pressure on the government, to accede to his demands”.

Prove it’s true, or pay up

The outcome:

• The allegations were found to be both defamatory and false.
• The director’s publication of them was unlawful.
• He is liable to pay damages (with the amount to be paid, and the question of a public apology, to be determined after hearing evidence).
• He is interdicted from repeating the allegations, directly or by implication. Breach that one and he could find himself jailed for contempt of court!
• He must pay costs on the punitive attorney and client scale.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“If cars are required to be roadworthy, shouldn’t roads be required to be car-worthy?” (Online meme)

If you fall victim to a pothole-infested road, don’t hesitate to sue for your losses. A recent High Court victory for a motorist claiming R8.6m in damages confirms yet again that those charged with maintaining our roads can be made to pay for failing to do so.

R8.6m claimed for a pothole crash

• A motorist hit a pothole on a gravel road, lost control, and hit a tree. Severe injuries landed him in the ICU with no memory of the crash, and he claimed R8.6m from a provincial department of Public Works and Roads for past and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings and general damages.
• His case was that the department’s negligence was the sole cause of his accident. He was, he said, a careful driver unfamiliar with the road in question. As he had no recollection of the accident, the Court relied on expert testimony that the vehicle and tyres were in good condition and his speed was probably about 80kph, whilst the road had numerous potholes and no signs warning of hazards or speed limits despite it being a road notorious for accidents.
• The department flatly denied any liability and said there were no potholes in the road. Alternatively, it claimed that the accident was caused solely by the driver’s negligence, alternatively that he was contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to avoid the accident when he could have done so.
• On the facts the Court held the department 100% liable for whatever damages are proved or agreed. The driver, said the Court, had proved that the department had a duty of care to him, his injuries resulted from its breach of that duty, and it had a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. It was negligent in not maintaining the road and in not keeping it in a constant state of repair.
• On the other side of the coin, the department had not proved any contributory negligence on the part of the motorist – it alone was to blame.

Drivers – your duty to keep a proper lookout

None of that of course means that you will automatically be able to recover for vehicle damage or injury caused by a pothole. As our courts have put it: “A driver of a motor vehicle is obliged to maintain a proper look-out. He (or she) must pay attention to what is happening around him; but most important of all, he must as far as possible keep his eyes on the road …”.

That boils down to simply taking common-sense safety precautions – being aware of the general condition of the road, keeping a proper lookout at all times (a particularly sharp lookout when visibility is poor), travelling carefully and at a reasonable speed, paying attention to road hazard signs and speed limits, keeping your vehicle safe and roadworthy.

All are factors that a court will take into account if you end up in a legal fight, and if you are shown not to have complied with any one of them you risk either losing your claim in total, or having your claim apportioned for contributory negligence.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The path is smooth that leadeth on to danger” (William Shakespeare)

Tripping over aisle blockages or slipping on floors made slick by spillages can happen in even the best-managed supermarkets, and injured shoppers regularly turn to our courts to claim damages from shopkeepers and building owners.

It’s no surprise therefore that this sort of claim has its own (informal) name – the “slip ‘n trip” case. A recent High Court judgment provides some clarity on what you will need to prove should you be one of the unfortunate shoppers who are injured in this way.

A shopper slips, and sues

• A shopper slipped on an unidentified spillage, injuring herself and needing hospitalisation and further treatment for unspecified orthopaedic injuries.
• Supermarket employees initially undertook to cover her medical expenses but later the supermarket denied liability.
• It admitted that it had a “general duty of care to customers visiting its store to ensure that it afforded them a safe environment within in which to shop”, but claimed the shopper’s fall was “due to her sole negligence in that she failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent her fall and failed to avoid injury to herself.” In the alternative it alleged contributory negligence on her part. It also sought to blame its cleaning service contractors and/or an independent merchandiser who had been working in the aisle in question.
• The shopper took her claim for damages to the High Court, which confirmed that what you will have to prove is that the shop –
  • Should have foreseen the reasonable possibility of its conduct causing your injury and monetary loss; and
  • Should have taken reasonable steps to avoid that loss; and
  • Didn’t do so.
• The Court held that, on the evidence presented, the shopper had proved that “she took proper care for her own safety on the morning in question. The fact that she may have moved down aisle 5 at more than a leisurely dawdle did not occasion her fall: she did not slip or trip because of haste or inattention but because she stepped in some spillage of unknown origin.” (i.e., you need to prove you weren’t negligent)
• And even if the spillage was a small one (supposedly the size of a R2 coin in this case) “it really matters not what the extent thereof was as its mere presence on the supermarket floor presented a risk to any unassuming shopper, who would be expected to spend her morning looking at the merchandise on the shelves and not peering down at the floor ahead of her.” (i.e., keeping a proper lookout doesn’t necessarily mean peering down at the floor ahead of you all the time)
• In principle, once a shopper has “testified to the circumstances in which he fell, and the apparent cause of the fall, and has shown that he was taking proper care for his own safety, he has ordinarily done as much as it is possible to do to prove that the cause of the fall was negligence on the part of the [supermarket] who, as a matter of law, has the duty to take reasonable steps to keep his premises reasonably safe at all times when members of the public may be using them.
• The shopper in this case had done all that, raising a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the supermarket so that, in the absence of an explanation from it, it was inferred that a negligent failure on its part to perform its duty must have been the cause of the fall. In this case it provided no evidence of how long the spillage had been on the floor or how long it was reasonably necessary for it to discover the spillage and clean it up. (i.e., once you prove what happened and that you took proper care for your own safety, it’s for the supermarket to prove that it wasn’t negligent)
• The shopper is entitled to whatever level of damages she can prove.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“…in general, ownership of an animal should carry with it strict liability for any harm done by the animal.” (Extract from judgment below)

Owning a pet comes with both joys and responsibilities, and a recent High Court award of almost R100,000 in damages to the victim of a dog attack is yet another reminder of the potential dangers of animal ownership and the legal responsibilities that come with it.

A social invite goes horribly wrong

• 17 years old at the time, a young woman was invited to a social gathering at a private house. As the gate was opened to let her in, two dogs came running out and the one (a large Siberian Husky) ran towards her and without warning launched itself towards her throat. She raised her arms to ward off the attack which resulted in both her forearms being bitten.
• Rushed to hospital, she was operated on by a plastic surgeon and has been left (nine years on) with scarring, physical disability and pain requiring physiotherapy, as well as counselling for psychological trauma in the form of PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
• The dog’s owner suggested in court papers that when the dog jumped up to greet the victim, she had provoked it and acted negligently by retaliating, hitting it and pulling its hair. She was, he said, injured when the dog fended off her “unwarranted attack”. However, as the owner led no evidence to support this (the onus being on him to do so) the Court accepted that there was no provocation or negligence from the victim’s side.
• On the basis of our law’s general legal principle that “…in general, ownership of an animal should carry with it strict liability for any harm done by the animal”, the Court ordered the dog’s owner to pay the victim a total of just under R100,000 in damages.

The danger for pet owners – liability without fault

To understand that outcome, we need to go back to an old Roman law remedy, the pauperian action (“actio de pauperie”).

Under that action, which is still very much part of our modern law, the victim does not need to prove that the animal’s owner was negligent in any way. If your dog (or any other domesticated animal) causes someone else harm you are held liable on a “no fault” or “strict liability” basis.

There are a few limited exceptions to this rule, so if for example the dog’s owner in this case had been able to show that the victim had provoked the attack, she would no longer have been able to rely on the “no fault” concept. She would then have had to prove negligence and fault on the dog owner’s part – a much harder task.

But the general risk for animal owners remains this – you can be held liable for damage caused by your animals without the slightest fault on your part.

Dog Owners – how to manage the risks

So let’s end off with a few practical tips on how to protect your pet, ensure the safety of others, and reduce your risk of legal liability –

1. Understand the risk: You could be held legally responsible for any harm caused by your pet, including injuries to people and other animals, property damage, and emotional distress suffered by the victims.
2. Check your insurance cover: Make sure you have in place Public Liability insurance that will cover you for any claim of this nature.
3. Socialise and train your dog: Proper socialisation and training are vital to prevent aggressive behavior in dogs. Ensure that your dog interacts well with people and other animals.
4. Supervision and restraint: Keep your dogs supervised and under control at all times. Follow leash laws in public spaces or whenever there is any risk of harm.
5. Watch for the warning signs: Be aware of any signs or history of aggression or fear in your dog, and if necessary, seek professional help from a qualified animal behaviorist or trainer.
6. Take legal advice: If you are ever involved in a dog-related incident, consult immediately with your lawyer to assess your case, explain your legal rights, and guide you through the necessary legal processes.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“The American Automobile Association estimated in the five years prior to 2016 that 16 million drivers in the United States have suffered damage from potholes to their vehicle including tire punctures, bent wheels, and damaged suspensions with a cost of $3 billion a year.” (Wikipedia)

Pothole problems are by no means exclusive to South Africa, but we certainly do seem to have more than our fair share of them.

As a recent High Court decision illustrates, if you suffer any form of loss as a result of a pothole, hold whoever is responsible to account. Sue for your damages!

Injured motorcyclist awarded damages

• Descending a pass on a provincial road with a group of fellow bikers, a motorcyclist leaned into a corner on a sharp bend then hit and went over a pothole. He lost control of the bike which then skidded across the road surface, injuring his shoulder and arm and damaging his clothing and motorbike.
• He was taken by ambulance to hospital, underwent surgery, and although discharged after four days, still two years later is taking painkillers and undergoing physiotherapy for ongoing pain and restricted use of his shoulder and arm.
• An expert confirmed that he had had no opportunity to avoid the pothole and thus the accident. It was also clear that an attempt had been made to repair the pothole.
• He had suffered permanent injuries which “have left him greatly compromised and vulnerable.”
• He sued the Province for damages, and was no doubt pleasantly surprised when the MEC made no effort to defend the action. However, he still had to prove his claim…

Proving negligence, and loss

The Court confirmed that the onus is on a claimant to prove negligence on the part of the local authority, even when, as in this case, the MEC had taken no steps to defend the claim and it was uncontested.

Finding from the uncontradicted evidence of the biker and his expert witnesses that the MEC was solely negligent for the accident in failing to live up to the responsibility “of building, maintaining road infrastructure and putting up road signs cautioning road users of the dangers of potholes”, the Court held him liable for the claimant’s proved damages.

The Court awarded the claimant damages of R850,000 in respect only of those aspects of his claim that he had led evidence to support (future medical treatment and general damages). That figure could increase – although he had failed to produce evidence in support of his further claims (for loss of earnings and damage to property), he can still re-institute action for them.

So, do you have a claim?

You quite possibly do have a claim for any losses you suffer after hitting a pothole. Considering our courts’ attitude to the responsibility of local authorities for road maintenance, proving negligence may not be that hard. Line up also evidence to support all aspects of your claim.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“This is a running down case: literally” (Extract from judgment below)

The scene is Cape Town’s iconic Sea Point Promenade. An elite runner participating in a race knocks down a pedestrian out for a Sunday walk, causing serious injuries. The pedestrian sues both the runner and the race organiser for damages of R718,000.

The outcome is another reminder to us all to be aware of our surroundings at all times – a moment’s inattention can change everything in a split second. As the facts here illustrate…

The race-day collision and the R718,000 claim

• Although the Court heard conflicting evidence as to detail, the setting for this unfortunate collision was common cause. A popular public space on a Sunday, replete with not only the normal pedestrians, cyclists, dog walkers and kite-flyers, but on this particular day also thousands of participants in a “Ladies Race”, ranging from athletes competing in an “elite race” to costumed “Fun Walk” entrants.
• Going for a Sunday stroll with a friend and “in the wrong place at the wrong time” whilst blissfully unaware of the misfortune about to be visited upon her for her act of goodwill, the claimant happily consented to a request from a group of “Fun Walk” participants to take a “happy snap” of them.
• Picture taken, she moved across the sidewalk to hand the camera back to its owner and a participant in the “elite race” ran straight into her, then ran off to finish her race.
• Suggestions that the runner (approaching it seems at about 20 kph) shouted a warning to the effect of “get out of my way” and forcefully pushed the claimant aside were in dispute, but what was clear was that she was knocked to the ground and sustained a hip injury which resulted in an ambulance trip to hospital and hip replacement surgery.
• The claimant sued both the runner and the race organiser for R718,000 in damages. The Court’s findings hold lessons for us all.

The race organiser off the hook

On the evidence, the race organiser and the race Marshall in the vicinity of the collision were cleared of any negligence.

The runner’s negligence

The runner, found the Court, was in a public space and should have been alive to the possibility of encountering other sidewalk users at close quarters. She had a duty to keep a proper look out and should have taken into account “the nonchalance and lack of interest of ordinary pedestrians who were out and about enjoying the fresh air rather than watching an athletics race. Ordinary human experience tells one that such persons might behave irrationally and get in the way, as it were.” (Emphasis added).

The runner was negligent in focussing only on the ground immediately ahead of her, “running as if in a bubble, oblivious to what was happening around her and intent only on achieving her goal of winning the race.” She could have avoided the collision with little effort and without seriously affecting her chances in the race.

The pedestrian’s 70% contributory negligence

However, in all the circumstances the Court held that the claimant (actually the executor of her estate as she had later died from unrelated causes) was only entitled to 30% of whatever damages could be proved.

She had been, said the Court, considerably more negligent than the runner. She had to be aware of the race, she knew runners were “whizzing” past her, and she had been warned of runners coming through.

The old ironic saying “no good deed goes unpunished” springs to mind, but the hard fact (in life as in law) is that we are often the architects of our own misfortune.

Be aware of your surroundings at all times!

It’s a hard lesson, but the law holds us to certain standards, and one of those is to keep a proper look out, particularly when in a public space. A moment’s inattention, and in a split second your life could change forever, with physical injuries compounded by the risk of damages claims and counterclaims of contributory negligence.

Take legal advice immediately if you are unlucky enough to be involved in an incident causing injury or other loss!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews

“Where one of the parties wishes to be absolved either wholly or partially from an obligation or liability which would or could arise at common law under a contract of the kind which the parties intend to conclude, it is for that party to ensure that the extent to which he, she or it is to be absolved is plainly spelt out.” (Extract from judgment below)

The cargo thief who stole R4.5m worth of computers

Employers – can you be sued?

Customers – can you sue?

© LawDotNews

“… it is by now long established in our law that the owner or other person or entity in control of a shopping mall has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that its premises are ‘reasonably safe’ for those members of the public who might frequent them … What such steps may be will depend on the circumstances.” (Extract from judgment below)

The Festive Season is once more upon us, cueing shops, shopping centres and malls packed with ever-growing crowds of shoppers.

What happens if you fall while shopping and hurt yourself? Our law reports are full of cases where shops are sued for damages following “slips” and “trips”, and a recent High Court case confirms once again that as a general rule shops and malls are liable to keep their visitors from harm.

A broken elbow from a slip on a wet mall floor

• A shopper visited a mall to draw money from an ATM on a rainy day. Rain carried into the mall by other shoppers on their rain jackets, umbrellas and shoes had left the floor wet and slippery, and she saw a yellow ‘wet floor’ warning sign on the tiled floor.
• 14 metres from the mall entrance her feet suddenly gave way from under her and she fell, extending her right arm to break her fall and shield the baby she was carrying. She was left with a fractured elbow.
• She successfully sued both the mall’s owner and its management company for damages, a “Full Bench” of the High Court ordering the two companies to pay “jointly and severally” whatever damages she can prove.
• “Thus, in summary” held the Court, “the owner or person or entity in control of a mall will only potentially be liable for harm or danger which would have been foreseeable to the hypothetical reasonable man in its position, and is obliged to take no more than reasonable steps to guard against such harm occurring … Whether the steps that were taken in a particular case are to be regarded as reasonable or not depends upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and merely because harm which was foreseeable did eventuate does not mean that the steps which were taken to avoid it were necessarily unreasonable. Ultimately the inquiry involves a value judgement on the part of the Court.”
• The Court found that the “legal duty to take reasonable steps to safeguard the [shopper] from harm that day … was one which fell primarily and squarely” on the owner and its management company.
• It rejected the defence raised that the mall’s cleaning contractors were the liable party with the comment “It would be a startling state of affairs if independent cleaning contractors in shopping malls who are only contracted to keep floors clean became saddled with a duty to safeguard those who frequent the mall premises, and became liable to them on this basis in the event that they failed to comply with their contractual cleaning duties.”

What about “enter at your own risk” disclaimer notices?

Another defence raised was that there were “enter entirely at your own risk” type disclaimer notices “prominently displayed” at all entrances to the mall. The shopper denied having noticed any such notices either on the day in question or on previous visits to the mall, and the Court found that the mall owner and manager had failed to prove that –

1. Such a notice was displayed at the time, and
2. The shopper had read and accepted the terms of the notice “or at the very least that they had taken ‘reasonably sufficient’ steps to ensure that the notice would come to her attention in the ordinary course”.

The bottom line for shop and mall owners

Take all reasonable steps to keep your visitors from harm, and ensure that you have adequate and prominent disclaimer notices displayed at all times. Keep these notices updated – one of the mall owner’s problems in this case was that the disclaimer notices were old and still in the name of a previous owner.

The bottom line for shoppers

As this judgment shows, you have to jump through a number of loops to establish a claim. Besides, shops and malls by their very nature present dangers to the unwary – spillages, items dropped on the floor, wet and slippery surfaces and the like are common and if you don’t keep your eyes open and your wits about you, you run the risk of a court holding you fully or partially liable for your own misfortune. In that event it could dismiss your claim or at most only award you part of your damages on the basis of your “contributory negligence”.

Worse, you could have no claim at all if a court finds you bound by an “enter at your own risk” disclaimer sign.

So – enjoy your Festive Season shopping, but Safety First!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

© LawDotNews