The driver of a security vehicle was awarded damages against his employer for injuries he sustained in a hijacking because he did not have the promised bullet proof glass windscreen.
When being interviewed for the job, the plaintiff had been informed that he would be driving a fully armoured vehicle and the front section of the vehicle, that is the glass, was bullet proof. That was not the case. The glass was bullet resistant only. Both in the trial court and on appeal in the High Court (in Protea Coin Group v Chetty), the court found that the plaintiff’s version regarding the misrepresentation was probable.
Both courts found that a reasonable person in the position of the operations manager, who interviewed the plaintiff when making such representations as to the impenetrability of the vehicle, knowing it could be penetrated by a certain calibre of firearms, would act negligently.