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)
______________________________________________________________________________
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.
4.1 Factual causation refers to the actual cause-and-effect relationship between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. It asks whether the harmful consequence would have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligent conduct. Legal causation, on the other hand, refers to the legal responsibility assigned to the defendant for the harmful consequence, even if there were other intervening factors that contributed to the harm.
4.2 In determining for which of the harmful consequences the Municipality could be held liable, the legal principle of foreseeability and the "but for" test would be applied. Foreseeability means that the harm caused by the Municipality's negligence was reasonably foreseeable. In terms of the influence of the Constitution on the development of this principle, case law has established that the right to bodily integrity and the right to an environment that is not harmful to health are protected under the Constitution. This has led to the development of a duty of care on the part of the Municipality to prevent harm and to be held liable for harmful consequences arising from its actions or omissions.
4.3 In principle, the Municipality would not be liable for the further medical costs resulting from Mr Dlamini slipping in his living room and causing further injury to his broken arm. This is because the new occurrence was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation. The legal position is that the Municipality can only be held liable for harm that is reasonably foreseeable and directly caused by its negligence. This principle is supported by case law, such as the case of Mvunganyi v City of Johannesburg, where the court held that the Municipality was not liable for harm caused by an intervening act.
5.1 The different types of harm suffered by Mr Dlamini include the initial injury (broken arm), the pain and suffering experienced, the medical expenses incurred, and any further injury caused by slipping in his living room. In principle, Mr Dlamini may institute an action for delictual damages to claim compensation for these harms suffered.
5.2 No, the benefits of receiving medical treatment free of charge in a provincial hospital would not be regarded as res inter alios acta. Res inter alios acta refers to an act or transaction between other parties that is not relevant to the issues to be determined in a case. In this case, the fact that Mr Dlamini received free medical treatment in a provincial hospital is relevant to his claim for compensation, as it shows the specific harm suffered and the corresponding expenses incurred.
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 objective comparative method and the subjective comparative method. The objective comparative method assesses the extent of the damage based on an objective standard, considering what a reasonable person would have experienced in similar circumstances. The subjective comparative method, on the other hand, assesses the extent of the damage based on the subjective experience and circumstances of the individual plaintiff.
To answer Question 4:
4.1 Factual causation refers to the actual cause of the harm or loss, focusing on the "but for" test - meaning that if the defendant's actions had not occurred, the harm would not have occurred either. Legal causation, on the other hand, refers to the degree of responsibility or legal connection between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered. It includes considerations such as foreseeability and the extent of the defendant's control over the situation.
To understand the difference between factual and legal causation, you can start by examining the sequence of events and determining if the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. If the answer is no, then the defendant's actions are likely the factual cause of the harm. However, determining legal causation requires analyzing factors such as foreseeability and the defendant's level of control.
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 "proximate cause" principle. This principle considers the foreseeability and directness of the link between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered. In South African law, the influence of the Constitution on the development of this principle is seen in cases where the court has interpreted the Constitution's provisions on just and equitable compensation, which can influence the determination of liability and the extent of compensation.
To understand the influence of the Constitution on the development of the proximate cause principle, you can research and analyze relevant case law that involves constitutional interpretation in relation to causation and liability in delict.
4.3 In principle, the Municipality may also be liable for the further medical costs caused by Mr. Dlamini slipping and falling in his living room. This is because the original injury from their negligence was still ongoing when the subsequent injury occurred. The Municipality's negligence contributed to the initial harm, and they are responsible for the continuous consequences of that harm.
To explain the legal position and relevant case law, you can review cases that involve similar circumstances where a defendant's negligence initially caused harm, and subsequent injuries or complications arose as a result. Analyze the court's reasoning and decision in those cases to understand the legal position and potential liability of the Municipality in this situation.
Moving on to Question 5:
5.1 The different types of harm suffered by Mr. Dlamini include the initial injury caused by the Municipality's negligence, the further injury caused by the slip and fall in his living room, and any resulting medical expenses and associated costs. In principle, Mr. Dlamini may be able to institute an action for compensation for these harms suffered.
To advise on the action(s) Mr. Dlamini may in principle institute, you can research and analyze the applicable laws and legal principles related to personal injury claims and compensation in delict. Additionally, review relevant case law that involves similar harms suffered by individuals and the court's decisions on the actions they could institute for compensation.
5.2 If Mr. Dlamini received medical treatment free of charge in a provincial hospital, these benefits would not typically be regarded as res inter alios acta. Res inter alios acta is a legal concept that refers to a matter conducted between others and does not directly involve the parties to the current legal dispute. In the context of compensation claims, res inter alios acta means that benefits received from a third party, such as the provincial hospital, would not reduce the defendant's liability.
To explain this briefly, you can outline the concept of res inter alios acta and its application in compensation claims. You can also refer to any relevant legal principles or case law that address this concept in personal injury cases.
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 "objective comparative method" and the "subjective comparative method."
The objective comparative method assesses the damage suffered by comparing the plaintiff's pre-injury condition with their post-injury condition in an objective manner. This means considering the impairment or loss suffered regardless of the individual's subjective experiences or circumstances.
The subjective comparative method, on the other hand, assesses the damage suffered by considering the individual's unique circumstances, experiences, and subjective impact of the harm suffered.
To explain these methods briefly, you can define each method and outline how they differ in their approach to assessing damages. Additionally, mention any case law or legal principles that have applied these methods in determining the existence and extent of damage suffered in delict cases.