Is the duty of care doctrine foreign to the principles of Roman Dutch law?
Neethling and Potgieter, referred to in this recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, say that the doctrine “is an unnecessary and round about way of establishing what may be established directly by means of the reasonable person test for negligence, i.e.
In a January 2025 judgment, the High Court dealt with a claim for damages by the claimant, who slipped and fell on a wet floor at a restaurant owned by the defendant. The central issue was whether the defendant was negligent in maintaining the premises and whether their negligence caused the claimant’s injuries. The court
Whether a doctor’s conduct is reasonable or negligent is tested by comparing it with what would be expected of a reasonable doctor in the circumstances. The test does not expect the doctor to have the highest level of skill and expertise but rather the general level of skill and diligence possessed and exercised at the
This blog was co-authored by: Adrienne Cloete, Candidate Attorney.
The hosting school hosted a rugby tournament. During a match with a visiting school the claimant (Izak), playing for the visiting school team suffered a neck injury after being tackled by a player from the opposing team. The player was carried off the field by two
This blog was co-authored by: Carly Lakin, Candidate Attorney
In this judgment the court considered whether the principal was liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
An attorney at the Gqeberha Magistrates’ Court slipped on a wet floor and sustained injuries. He instituted action against the Minister of Public Works & Infrastructure as the
The High Court in Gqeberha has confirmed that the shop owner has the legal duty to take the reasonable steps to prevent harm to its patrons and to take the reasonable steps to warn customers of potential dangers.
Whilst shopping at the store of the defendant, the claimant, slipped and fell due to cake flour
The test for negligence is straightforward and summarised in the frequently cited judgment of Kruger v Coetzee 1966 2 SA 428 A at 430 E-H
If a reasonable person would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of harm and would have taken reasonable steps to prevent it happening, and the person in question did not do
This blog was co-authored by: Tristan Marot, associate designate
In the high court judgment Legal Expenses Insurance Southern Africa Limited t/a Legalwise v Melamu, the high court confirmed that as a “general rule an employer is not liable for the wrongdoing of an independent contractor unless the employer was personally at fault.”
The plaintiff
The owner of a dog that attacks a person who neither provoked the attack nor by their negligence directly caused their own injury is liable, as owner, to make good the resultant damages.
Based on Roman law, for nearly 200 years the law in South Africa has been accepted that owners of animals are strictly
Shop owners have a duty of care to their customers. The duty of care necessitates preventing harm to customers, which can be reasonably foreseen. The duty is however not limitless.
In De Wet v Gateway Plaza Meatworld CC De Wet slipped and fell at Gateway Plaza. She alleged that her fall was caused by oil