PVL3703
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
,PVL3703 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Read the fictitious scenario below and then discuss whether Ricky’s behaviour
constitutes conduct for the purposes of delict.
Ricky is a mechanical engineer working for a large construction firm. One
afternoon, he leaves the site earlier than usual to pick up his child from school.
Before he departs, he notices that the scaffolding equipment on the site has not
been fully secured. However, he decides not to address the issue, assuming that
the workers on the next shift will complete the installation. That evening, strong
winds caused parts of the unsecured scaffolding to collapse onto the pavement
outside the construction site. A pedestrian named Colby was struck by falling
metal poles and sustained serious head
In the law of delict, conduct or act is a fundamental prerequisite for liability. Conduct is
defined as a voluntary human act or omission, which forms the damage-causing event.¹
For Ricky's behaviour to be classified as delictual conduct, it must be established that
his actions were voluntary, regardless of whether they constitute a positive act
(commissio) or a failure to act (omissio).²
Analysis of Ricky's Behaviour
Ricky’s failure to secure the scaffolding or warn others does not constitute positive
conduct (commissio). Instead, his behaviour is a clear example of an omission
(omissio), which is a failure to act positively to prevent harm.³
¹ Law of Delict 8th ed, 27.
² Law of Delict 8th ed, 28.
³ Law of Delict 8th ed, 32.
, The General Principle Regarding Omissions
As a point of departure, a person is generally not liable for an omission. Our law is
reluctant to impose a general legal duty on a person to prevent loss to another through
positive action.⁴ Therefore, an omission is not prima facie wrongful but rather prima
facie lawful.⁵
A person will only be liable for an omission if, in the specific circumstances, there was a
legal duty (legal duty) on him or her to act positively to prevent the damage.⁶ The
question is whether it was reasonable, according to the legal convictions of the
community (boni mores), to expect the person to have taken steps to prevent the harm.⁷
Factors Indicating a Legal Duty on Ricky
To determine whether a legal duty rested on Ricky, one must consider the interplay of
various factors that may indicate the existence of such a duty.⁸ The following factors are
particularly relevant:
⁴ Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 3 SA 590 (A); Law of Delict 8th ed, 64.
⁵ Law of Delict 8th ed, 77.
⁶ Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA); Law of Delict 8th ed, 65.
⁷ Law of Delict 8th ed, 65.
⁸ Law of Delict 8th ed, 66.
ASSIGNMENT 1
DUE DATE: 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
,PVL3703 ASSIGNMENT 1 2026
DUE 1 SEPTEMBER 2026
Read the fictitious scenario below and then discuss whether Ricky’s behaviour
constitutes conduct for the purposes of delict.
Ricky is a mechanical engineer working for a large construction firm. One
afternoon, he leaves the site earlier than usual to pick up his child from school.
Before he departs, he notices that the scaffolding equipment on the site has not
been fully secured. However, he decides not to address the issue, assuming that
the workers on the next shift will complete the installation. That evening, strong
winds caused parts of the unsecured scaffolding to collapse onto the pavement
outside the construction site. A pedestrian named Colby was struck by falling
metal poles and sustained serious head
In the law of delict, conduct or act is a fundamental prerequisite for liability. Conduct is
defined as a voluntary human act or omission, which forms the damage-causing event.¹
For Ricky's behaviour to be classified as delictual conduct, it must be established that
his actions were voluntary, regardless of whether they constitute a positive act
(commissio) or a failure to act (omissio).²
Analysis of Ricky's Behaviour
Ricky’s failure to secure the scaffolding or warn others does not constitute positive
conduct (commissio). Instead, his behaviour is a clear example of an omission
(omissio), which is a failure to act positively to prevent harm.³
¹ Law of Delict 8th ed, 27.
² Law of Delict 8th ed, 28.
³ Law of Delict 8th ed, 32.
, The General Principle Regarding Omissions
As a point of departure, a person is generally not liable for an omission. Our law is
reluctant to impose a general legal duty on a person to prevent loss to another through
positive action.⁴ Therefore, an omission is not prima facie wrongful but rather prima
facie lawful.⁵
A person will only be liable for an omission if, in the specific circumstances, there was a
legal duty (legal duty) on him or her to act positively to prevent the damage.⁶ The
question is whether it was reasonable, according to the legal convictions of the
community (boni mores), to expect the person to have taken steps to prevent the harm.⁷
Factors Indicating a Legal Duty on Ricky
To determine whether a legal duty rested on Ricky, one must consider the interplay of
various factors that may indicate the existence of such a duty.⁸ The following factors are
particularly relevant:
⁴ Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 3 SA 590 (A); Law of Delict 8th ed, 64.
⁵ Law of Delict 8th ed, 77.
⁶ Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA); Law of Delict 8th ed, 65.
⁷ Law of Delict 8th ed, 65.
⁸ Law of Delict 8th ed, 66.
