UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
PVL3703: Law of Delict
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
PVL3703
Module Code:
Law of Delict
Module Name:
Conduct as a General Requirement for
Essay Topic:
Delictual Liability
1
Assignment Number:
1 September 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Law of Delict, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | PVL3703 Conduct and the Law of Delict
Question 1: Whether Ricky’s Behaviour Constitutes Conduct for the Purposes of Delict
Conduct is the first of the five general elements a plaintiff must establish to found delictual
liability, the others being wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage.1 Conduct is defined as a
voluntary human act or omission, and the question below is confined to that single element:
whether Ricky’s failure to secure the scaffolding before leaving the site, taken together with
his departure itself, satisfies this threshold requirement. A finding that conduct is present
does not resolve whether Ricky is liable. It only opens the door to the enquiry into wrongful-
ness, fault, causation and damage, each of which must still be established independently.2
1.1 The Requirements for Legally Recognised Conduct
Three requirements must be met before behaviour qualifies as conduct in the delictual sense.
First, conduct must be an act of a human being. An animal cannot act for delictual purposes,
although where a person uses an animal as an instrument, the person’s own act is present.3
Ricky is a natural person, so this requirement is not in dispute.
Second, conduct may take the form of a positive act, a commissio, or a failure to act, an omis-
sio.4 South African law has never confined conduct to positive acts. An omission satisfies the
conduct requirement wherever the person was physically capable of acting but failed to do so,
regardless of whether the law ultimately treats that failure as wrongful.5 Ricky’s contention
that an omission cannot amount to conduct is accordingly incorrect in law. It confuses the
conduct enquiry, which asks only whether a voluntary failure to act occurred, with the wrong-
fulness enquiry, which asks whether that failure ought to attract legal consequences.
Third, the act or omission must be voluntary, meaning it must be susceptible to control by
the actor’s will.6 Voluntariness requires only that the person had the mental and physical
capacity to control the relevant bodily movements. It does not require that the person desired
the resulting harm, foresaw it, or acted rationally.7 A person who is unconscious, in a state of
1
J Neethling and JM Potgieter, Law of Delict (8th edn, LexisNexis 2021) 4–5.
2
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 5; PQR Boberg, The Law of Delict Volume I: Aquilian Liability (Juta 1984) 214.
3
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 27; Jooste v Minister of Police 1975 (1) SA 349 (E).
4
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 30–31; JC van der Walt and JR Midgley, Principles of Delict (4th edn, LexisNexis
2016) 91.
5
Minister of Police v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597A–B; Van der Walt and Midgley (n 4) 92.
6
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28; CR Snyman, Criminal Law (6th edn, LexisNexis 2014) 51, adopted for delictual
purposes in Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28.
7
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28–29.
Page 2 of 9
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
PVL3703: Law of Delict
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
PVL3703
Module Code:
Law of Delict
Module Name:
Conduct as a General Requirement for
Essay Topic:
Delictual Liability
1
Assignment Number:
1 September 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Law of Delict, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | PVL3703 Conduct and the Law of Delict
Question 1: Whether Ricky’s Behaviour Constitutes Conduct for the Purposes of Delict
Conduct is the first of the five general elements a plaintiff must establish to found delictual
liability, the others being wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage.1 Conduct is defined as a
voluntary human act or omission, and the question below is confined to that single element:
whether Ricky’s failure to secure the scaffolding before leaving the site, taken together with
his departure itself, satisfies this threshold requirement. A finding that conduct is present
does not resolve whether Ricky is liable. It only opens the door to the enquiry into wrongful-
ness, fault, causation and damage, each of which must still be established independently.2
1.1 The Requirements for Legally Recognised Conduct
Three requirements must be met before behaviour qualifies as conduct in the delictual sense.
First, conduct must be an act of a human being. An animal cannot act for delictual purposes,
although where a person uses an animal as an instrument, the person’s own act is present.3
Ricky is a natural person, so this requirement is not in dispute.
Second, conduct may take the form of a positive act, a commissio, or a failure to act, an omis-
sio.4 South African law has never confined conduct to positive acts. An omission satisfies the
conduct requirement wherever the person was physically capable of acting but failed to do so,
regardless of whether the law ultimately treats that failure as wrongful.5 Ricky’s contention
that an omission cannot amount to conduct is accordingly incorrect in law. It confuses the
conduct enquiry, which asks only whether a voluntary failure to act occurred, with the wrong-
fulness enquiry, which asks whether that failure ought to attract legal consequences.
Third, the act or omission must be voluntary, meaning it must be susceptible to control by
the actor’s will.6 Voluntariness requires only that the person had the mental and physical
capacity to control the relevant bodily movements. It does not require that the person desired
the resulting harm, foresaw it, or acted rationally.7 A person who is unconscious, in a state of
1
J Neethling and JM Potgieter, Law of Delict (8th edn, LexisNexis 2021) 4–5.
2
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 5; PQR Boberg, The Law of Delict Volume I: Aquilian Liability (Juta 1984) 214.
3
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 27; Jooste v Minister of Police 1975 (1) SA 349 (E).
4
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 30–31; JC van der Walt and JR Midgley, Principles of Delict (4th edn, LexisNexis
2016) 91.
5
Minister of Police v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597A–B; Van der Walt and Midgley (n 4) 92.
6
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28; CR Snyman, Criminal Law (6th edn, LexisNexis 2014) 51, adopted for delictual
purposes in Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28.
7
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1) 28–29.
Page 2 of 9
