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 if Lincoln is liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula, we need to establish if Lincoln owed a duty of care towards them and if he breached that duty.
In South African law, a duty of care arises when there is a reasonable foreseeability of harm to another person. The test for foreseeability is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen the harm in the circumstances.
In this case, it can be argued that Lincoln owed a duty of care towards Sarah and Lethula. Lincoln's actions of leaving an open flame unattended in his bedroom created a significant risk of starting a fire, especially considering the use of an old paraffin lamp. It can be reasonably foreseen that a fire could cause harm to neighboring houses and individuals.
The issue then becomes whether Lincoln breached his duty of care. Lincoln left the lamp burning unattended in his bedroom with the window open, which allowed a strong draft of wind to blow the lamp over. This act can be considered negligent as it created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Therefore, it can be argued that Lincoln breached his duty of care towards Sarah and Lethula by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of the fire.
In terms of establishing liability, we need to determine if the harm suffered by Sarah and Lethula was reasonably foreseeable and whether there is a causal link between Lincoln's breach of duty and the harm suffered.
In Sarah's case, her pre-existing condition of neurosis must be taken into account. Although Lincoln may not have foreseen the specific harm suffered by Sarah, it can be argued that the fire and subsequent death of Amanda, her mother, would reasonably cause shock and distress to any person in the same situation. Therefore, it can be argued that the harm suffered by Sarah was reasonably foreseeable and that there is a causal link between Lincoln's breach of duty and her psychological harm.
In Lethula's case, witnessing the destruction caused by the fire and experiencing extreme grief can be considered a direct consequence of Lincoln's breach of duty. It is foreseeable that witnessing such a traumatic event would cause psychological harm to a person. Therefore, it can be argued that the harm suffered by Lethula was reasonably foreseeable and that there is a causal link between Lincoln's breach of duty and his post-traumatic stress disorder.
Therefore, based on the arguments presented, it is likely that Lincoln would be held liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula. However, it is important to note that the final determination of liability would depend on the specific facts of the case and the discretion of the court.
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 delict and any applicable case law.
Delict refers to a civil wrong or harm caused by one person to another, resulting in legal liability. To establish liability in delict, the following elements must usually be proven:
1. Wrongfulness: The conduct of the defendant must be wrongful. Wrongfulness may include intentional harm or negligence.
2. Fault: The defendant must have acted either intentionally or negligently.
3. Causation: There must be a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
4. Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage, which can include physical harm, emotional distress, or financial loss.
In the given scenario, it can be argued that Lincoln's actions of leaving the old paraffin lamp burning in his bedroom with an open window were negligent. This negligence resulted in a fire that caused harm to Sarah and Lethula, leading to psychological injuries. Psychological harm can be considered a valid form of damage in delict cases.
In terms of case law, the South African case of Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2001 established that a person can be held liable for negligently causing psychological harm to another. The court held that the defendant's failure to act properly and prevent harm, even if unintentional, can give rise to liability.
Applying this principle to the given scenario, Lincoln's negligence in leaving the lamp unattended and causing the fire could be seen as a failure to act properly. This failure resulted in psychological harm to Sarah and Lethula. Therefore, Lincoln may be held liable in delict for the psychological harm caused to Sarah and Lethula.
It is important to note that this analysis is a general overview and the final determination of liability would depend on a thorough examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the applicable legal principles. Consulting with a legal professional would provide more accurate advice regarding Lincoln's specific situation.