In the case of Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd, it was established that multiple causes of action can arise from a single act or event. In this scenario, Lebo's punch to Sipho's face resulted in two causes of action:
1. Assault: The act of punching Sipho in the face without his consent constitutes an assault. This would fall under intentional torts, where the harm caused was intentional. The type of claim here would be for damages for the pain and suffering caused by the assault. The prescription period for a claim of assault is generally three years in South Africa.
2. Damage to Property: The punch also resulted in Sipho's glasses falling to the ground and shattering in pieces. This would constitute damage to property and would be a separate cause of action. The type of claim here would be for damages to replace or repair the glasses. The prescription period for a claim of damage to property is generally also three years in South Africa.
Therefore, Sipho would have two separate causes of action against Lebo for the assault and the damage to property, each with their own types of harm caused, types of claims, and prescription periods.
Sipho and Lebo are engaged in a vigorous verbal fight. The next moment Lebo punches Sipho in
the face. Sipho was not expecting the punch and was not quick enough to escape Lebo’s fist. The
punch broke his nose and simultaneously caused his glasses to fall to the ground and shatter in
pieces.
3.1 With reference to case law of Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd
, explain how many causes of action resulted from Lebo’s act
and the effect thereof with reference to the type of harm caused, the type of claim(s) and
the prescription of the claim(s).
1 answer