At 8pm on a Friday night, Lincoln, a Fauna resident, lights an old paraffin lamp as he has no electricity
due to scheduled load-shedding of electricity. Lincoln leaves the old paraffin lamp burning in his
bedroom with the bedroom window open and proceeds to spend the next half hour in the
neighbouring bedroom reading his son a bedtime story. A strong draft of wind blows the lamp over. As
a result of this a fire starts and spreads rapidly, engulfing his house and spreading to his neighbour’s
house. Penny [his neighbour] was holding a party when the flames engulfed her house. Penny’s house
is also destroyed in the fire. Richard [her husband] who was in the toilet at the time the fire broke out,
runs out of the house, undressed. Neo then takes a video of Richard running naked and sends it to his
friends. The following day Richard finds out almost everyone in Fauna has seen the video. Richard feels
utterly humiliated says that: "I honestly felt like just sitting in my house and not coming out. I want to
crawl into a hole." Amanda, a university lecturer who was also one of Penny’s guests succumbs to burn
wounds.
Sarah, Amanda’s daughter working in Durban, hears of the news about the fire and mother’s death
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. [
In order to determine whether Lincoln is liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula, we need to establish if there is a legal duty of care owed by Lincoln towards them, and if he breached that duty.
1. Psychological harm caused to Sarah:
The legal principles governing liability for pure psychological harm are well established. A claimant can only succeed in a claim for pure psychological harm if they can prove "nervous shock" caused by witnessing the harm suffered by another person. The test in South African law is whether a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness as a result of the defendant's negligence.
In this case, Lincoln's actions of leaving the old paraffin lamp burning in his bedroom with the bedroom window open created a foreseeable risk of fire spreading and causing harm to others. However, the harm suffered by Sarah was not a direct result of Lincoln's actions. It was caused by the shock and news of the fire and her mother's death, which was transmitted to her from a distance. Therefore, it is unlikely that Lincoln would be held liable for the psychological harm suffered by Sarah.
Case law to support this position includes the South African case of Joubert v Road Accident Fund, where it was held that a person who suffers nervous shock as a result of hearing about an accident second-hand cannot succeed in a delictual claim for psychological harm.
2. Psychological harm caused to Lethula:
Similar to Sarah's situation, Lethula's psychological harm was not a direct result of Lincoln's actions but rather a result of witnessing the fire and the destruction of Penny's house. In order for Lincoln to be held liable for Lethula's harm, it must be established that Lincoln owed a duty of care to Lethula and breached that duty.
However, as Lincoln had no control over the strong draft of wind that blew the lamp over and caused the fire, it can be argued that he did not breach his duty of care towards Lethula. The unforeseeable event of the strong draft causing the fire may break the chain of causation between Lincoln's initial actions and Lethula's harm.
Case law to support this position includes the South African case of Kruger v Coetzee, where it was held that a defendant will not be held liable for harm caused by an unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation between their actions and the harm suffered by the claimant.
Based on the above analysis, it is unlikely that Lincoln would be held liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula. However, it is important to note that liability in delict is a complex area and the outcome may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
In order to determine whether Lincoln is liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula, we need to consider the requirements of delictual liability and the specific circumstances of the case.
Delictual liability requires the following elements to be proven:
1. Wrongfulness: The defendant's conduct must be wrongful.
2. Fault: The defendant must have acted negligently or intentionally.
3. Causation: The defendant's conduct must have caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
4. Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm.
In this case, Lincoln's conduct of leaving the old paraffin lamp burning in his bedroom with the window open can be considered negligent. By doing so, he created a foreseeable risk of a fire starting and spreading. The fire caused the death of Amanda, which resulted in the psychological harm suffered by her daughter Sarah. Additionally, Lethula suffered from extreme grief and developed post-traumatic stress disorder due to witnessing the fire.
With regards to Sarah, it is important to note that she had a pre-existing neurotic condition and had been treated for it in a mental hospital two years prior. However, if the fire and subsequent death of her mother caused her condition to worsen and resulted in her catastrophic neurosis, it may be argued that Lincoln's negligent conduct was a contributing factor.
In the South African case of Kruger v Coetzee (1966), it was established that a defendant can be held liable for psychiatric harm if it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances. The court held that the defendant's negligence must have materially contributed to the psychiatric injury.
In this case, Lincoln's negligent conduct of leaving the lamp unattended and causing the fire can be seen as a material contribution to the psychological harm suffered by both Sarah and Lethula. The harm suffered by Sarah may be argued to be reasonably foreseeable, given her pre-existing condition and the traumatic event she experienced. Similarly, Lethula's extreme grief and post-traumatic stress disorder can be linked to the fire and would likely be considered reasonably foreseeable.
Therefore, it can be advised that Lincoln is potentially liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula. However, it is important to note that this is a complex legal matter and a court would need to consider all the facts and evidence before making a final determination on liability.