This blog is co-authored by Boitumelo Phillips, a candidate attorney.
In November 2025, the High Court dismissed a claim for damages against a landowner after a child was injured by a caterpillar machine operating on the property. The court found that mere ownership of land does not automatically impose a duty to prevent such incidents where there is no evidence that the owner commissioned the work or was aware of the dangerous activities.
The claimant, a child at the time, was injured in December 1997 when struck by a caterpillar machine while clearing land on a farm in Klapmuts, Western Cape. The action was brought against the owner of the land, alleging negligence in failing to prevent children from accessing the site and not ensuring proper safety measures. The claimant relied on various grounds, including alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Construction Regulations.
The court examined whether the evidence showed that the owner owned or controlled the caterpillar and whether it commissioned the work. Evidence showed the caterpillar machine belonged to a third party, and the owner did not employ the driver nor appoint a contractor. The claimant argued that the landowner should have foreseen the risk to children and taken steps to prevent access or halt the work. The court considered established principles, including foreseeability and the standard of care expected from a reasonable person which highlight that liability depends on knowledge of the danger and the ability to prevent harm.
The court found no evidence that the owner was aware of or commissioned the caterpillar machine’s activities. Mere ownership of land, especially vacant land used by the community as a playground, does not create a legal duty to prevent such incidents unless there are specific hazards present. The court emphasised that wrongfulness and negligence must be established separately and that, on the facts, neither was proven. The action was dismissed.
This judgment clarifies that landowners are not automatically liable for injuries on their property unless there is clear evidence of control over the hazardous activity or knowledge of the risk and a duty and ability to take steps to prevent harm.