Sarah, Amanda’s daughter working in Durban, hears of the news about the fire and mother’s death

Question

and is so shocked thatshe later suffers from catastrophic neurosis and is unable to work for 15 months.
Some 2 years earlier, Sarah had been a voluntary patient at a mental hospital, where she had been
treated for a neurotic condition. Lethula, Penny’s other guest, is shocked at what he sees happening
at Penny’s house and as a result suffers from extreme grief and later needs extensive psychiatric
counselling to overcome his post-traumatic stress disorder caused by what he witnessed.
1. Advise Lincoln whether he is liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and
Lethula. Substantiate your answer with reference to case law

Answer 1

In order to determine whether Lincoln is liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula, we need to consider the elements of a delictual claim and relevant case law.

A delict is a wrongful act committed by one person that causes harm to another for which the wrongdoer may be held legally liable. In order to establish liability, the following elements must be present:

1. Wrongfulness: The defendant's conduct must be wrongful. Wrongfulness can be established by considering whether the defendant's conduct violated a legal duty owed to the plaintiff or contravened societal norms.

2. Fault: The defendant must be at fault or negligent. Fault can be established by showing that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and this breach caused harm.

3. Causation: There must be a causal link between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The harm must have been reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant's actions.

4. Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or damage as a result of the defendant's conduct.

Regarding Sarah, it can be argued that Lincoln's failure to prevent the fire, resulting in her mother's death, caused her severe psychological harm. However, in order to establish liability, it must be demonstrated that Lincoln's conduct was wrongful, and he breached a duty of care owed to Sarah. Case law suggests that in order to establish a duty of care, there must be a sufficiently close and direct relationship between the parties. It is uncertain whether Lincoln owed a duty of care to Sarah as a family friend or neighbor, therefore, establishing wrongfulness and fault may be challenging. However, if it can be proven that Lincoln acted negligently, causing the fire and Sarah's psychological harm, he may be held liable.

Regarding Lethula, his claim for liability against Lincoln may be more complex. Lethula's harm was not directly caused by Lincoln's actions but rather by witnessing the aftermath of the fire at Penny's house. In South African law, the recognition of purely psychiatric harm claims (claims for psychological harm without accompanying physical injury) has been limited to certain circumstances. The court has held that in order for a claim for purely psychiatric harm to succeed, there must be a close and direct relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, or the plaintiff must have witnessed a horrifying event involving the defendant. It is uncertain whether Lethula can establish a sufficiently close or direct relationship with Lincoln or if he witnessed the fire directly caused by Lincoln. Therefore, it may be difficult for Lethula to establish liability on the part of Lincoln for his post-traumatic stress disorder.

In conclusion, the liability of Lincoln in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula will depend on the specific circumstances and facts surrounding their claims. It will be necessary to examine the evidence and apply relevant case law to determine whether Lincoln's conduct was wrongful, breached a duty of care, and caused the harm suffered by Sarah and Lethula.