4.1 Factual causation refers to the direct cause and effect relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. It asks whether the defendant's actions were the factual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Legal causation, on the other hand, considers whether the defendant should be held legally responsible for the harm even if there was factual causation. It involves determining whether it is fair and just to hold the defendant liable for the harm.
4.2 The legal principle that would be applied to determine for which of the harmful consequences the Municipality could be held liable is the principle of foreseeability. This principle holds that a person is only liable for harmful consequences that were reasonably foreseeable as a result of their actions. The influence of the Constitution on the development of this principle can be seen in case law where the courts have recognized that the principle of foreseeability is an important aspect of the constitutional right to security, as enshrined in Section 12 of the South African Constitution. This means that the courts have interpreted the principle of foreseeability in a way that promotes the protection of individual rights.
4.3 In principle, the Municipality could also be liable for the further medical costs resulting from Mr Dlamini's slip in his living room. This is because the slip and fall was caused by the initial negligence of the Municipality and has aggravated Mr Dlamini's existing injury. The legal position is that the Municipality can be held liable for the further medical costs as long as it was reasonably foreseeable that the initial negligence could result in additional harm to Mr Dlamini. Relevant case law that supports this position is the case of Kruger v Coetzee, where the court held that a defendant who causes an initial injury is also liable for any consequential harm caused by the plaintiff's reaction to that injury.
5.1 The different types of harm suffered by Mr Dlamini include physical harm (broken arm), pain and suffering, medical expenses, and potentially loss of income if he is unable to work due to his injury. In principle, Mr Dlamini could institute an action for damages to claim compensation for these harms suffered.
5.2 No, the benefits received by Mr Dlamini in the form of free medical treatment in a provincial hospital will not be regarded as res inter alios acta. Res inter alios acta refers to a situation where a benefit is provided to a third party without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and thus cannot be claimed as compensation by the plaintiff. In this case, Mr Dlamini received the medical treatment himself and it was provided by the government, so it cannot be considered as res inter alios acta.
5.3 The two comparative methods of assessment of damage that could be used to determine the existence and extent of the damage suffered by Mr Dlamini are the conventional method and the constitutional method.
The conventional method involves comparing the plaintiff's situation before and after the harm occurred in terms of his physical and emotional well-being, financial status, and overall quality of life. The damages awarded will aim to restore the plaintiff to the position he was in before the harm occurred, as far as possible.
The constitutional method takes into account the constitutional values and rights, such as the right to dignity, the right to security, and the right to equality. The damages awarded using this method will not only consider the plaintiff's individual losses, but also the broader societal impact and the need to deter future similar wrongdoing. This method seeks to promote a just and equitable society and may result in higher damages being awarded to reflect the constitutional values at stake.
Question 4
Answer the following questions with reference to causation as an element of a delict.
4.1 Explain the difference between factual and legal causation. (2)
4.2 Discuss the legal principle which would be applied to determine for which of the harmful
consequences the Municipality could be held liable. Refer to the influence of the
Constitution on the development of this principle by way of case law. (4)
4.3 Suppose only the Municipality is found to be negligent. Mr Dlamini is released from
hospital but has to wear a cast on his arm for another 6 weeks. When he arrives home,
he slips on the tiles in his living room and falls, causing further injury to his already broken
arm. This new occurrence leads to further medical expenses. Will the Municipality, in
principle, also be liable for these further medical costs? Explain the legal position and
refer to relevant case law. (4)
Question 5
5.1 Identify the different types of harm suffered by Mr Dlamini and advise on the action(s) that
he may in principle institute to claim compensation for the harm suffered. (2)
5.2 Suppose Mr Dlamini received medical treatment free of charge in a provincial hospital. Will
these benefits be regarded as res inter alios acta? Explain briefly. (2)
5.3 Name and briefly explain the difference between the two comparative methods of
assessment of damage that could be used to determine the existence and extent of the
damage suffered by Mr Dlamini. (2)
______________________________________________________________________________
1 answer