, PVL3703 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2026 - DUE 1 September 2026; 100% Correct solutions
and explanations.
Discuss whether Ricky's behaviour constitutes conduct for the purposes of
delict. (10 Marks)
Introduction
In the law of delict, liability does not arise merely because a person suffers harm.
A plaintiff must prove all the essential elements of delict, namely conduct,
wrongfulness, fault, causation, and damage. The first and most fundamental
requirement is the existence of conduct. Without conduct, there can be no delictual
liability.
The issue in this scenario is whether Ricky's behaviour, particularly his failure to
secure the scaffolding before leaving the construction site, constitutes legally
recognised conduct for the purposes of delict. Ricky denies liability on three
grounds. Firstly, he argues that he did not personally cause the scaffolding to
collapse because the strong winds were responsible. Secondly, he argues that the
responsibility for securing the scaffolding belonged to the shift supervisor rather
than himself. Thirdly, he contends that an omission cannot constitute conduct for
the purposes of delict.
This discussion will examine the legal principles governing conduct in South
African delict, distinguish between positive acts and omissions, analyse Ricky's
arguments, and apply the relevant legal principles to determine whether his
behaviour constitutes conduct.
1. Meaning of Conduct in the Law of Delict
Conduct is the first requirement for delictual liability. Conduct refers to voluntary
human behaviour that may either consist of a positive act (commission) or a
failure to act (omission).
The purpose of requiring conduct is to ensure that liability is imposed only where
the harm can be linked to human behaviour. Damage caused entirely by natural
forces without any relevant human conduct cannot give rise to delictual liability.
2 2026 - DUE 1 September 2026; 100% Correct solutions
and explanations.
Discuss whether Ricky's behaviour constitutes conduct for the purposes of
delict. (10 Marks)
Introduction
In the law of delict, liability does not arise merely because a person suffers harm.
A plaintiff must prove all the essential elements of delict, namely conduct,
wrongfulness, fault, causation, and damage. The first and most fundamental
requirement is the existence of conduct. Without conduct, there can be no delictual
liability.
The issue in this scenario is whether Ricky's behaviour, particularly his failure to
secure the scaffolding before leaving the construction site, constitutes legally
recognised conduct for the purposes of delict. Ricky denies liability on three
grounds. Firstly, he argues that he did not personally cause the scaffolding to
collapse because the strong winds were responsible. Secondly, he argues that the
responsibility for securing the scaffolding belonged to the shift supervisor rather
than himself. Thirdly, he contends that an omission cannot constitute conduct for
the purposes of delict.
This discussion will examine the legal principles governing conduct in South
African delict, distinguish between positive acts and omissions, analyse Ricky's
arguments, and apply the relevant legal principles to determine whether his
behaviour constitutes conduct.
1. Meaning of Conduct in the Law of Delict
Conduct is the first requirement for delictual liability. Conduct refers to voluntary
human behaviour that may either consist of a positive act (commission) or a
failure to act (omission).
The purpose of requiring conduct is to ensure that liability is imposed only where
the harm can be linked to human behaviour. Damage caused entirely by natural
forces without any relevant human conduct cannot give rise to delictual liability.
