Delict Test Consolidated Notes
Table of Contents
Topic One: Introduction......................................................................................................2
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?..................................................................................................2
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability..................................................4
Topic Two: Fault/ Culpability..............................................................................................7
Part I: Fault in the Form of Negligence..........................................................................................8
Scaffolding of Negligence and the Kruger v Coetzee Test..............................................................................8
Fagan’s Analysis of the Kruger v Coetzee Test................................................................................................9
Abstract vs Relative Approaches to Negligence...........................................................................................22
Part II: Fault in the Form of Intent.............................................................................................31
Scaffolding for Intention...............................................................................................................................31
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................31
Why intention matters to the determination of liability.........................................................................31
The Nature and Content of the Intention Required for Liability..................................................................37
Standard View on the Required Form or Direction of Will......................................................................38
Fagan’s Criticism and Comments.............................................................................................................39
Standard View on the Requirement of Consciousness of Wrongfulness................................................43
Fagan’s View of the Required Intention’s Nature and Content..............................................................44
Topic Three: Wrongfulness...............................................................................................48
Part I: The Scaffolding of Wrongfulness......................................................................................48
Where does this fit into Aquilian Liability?...................................................................................................48
Introduction to Wrongfulness......................................................................................................................48
Debate on the Meaning of Wrongfulness: Orthodox View vs Fagan’s View...............................................49
Evidence that the correct view is Fagan’s view.......................................................................................50
Part II: Negligent Harm Causing Conduct as Wrongful................................................................50
Breach of a Duty to not Cause Harm Negligently: Tracking the Legal Development...................................50
Overview..................................................................................................................................................50
A Breach of this Kind is a Requirement for Liability................................................................................51
Using ‘wrongfulness’ to refer to breach of this kind of duty...................................................................53
Necessity of Negligence...........................................................................................................................54
Law Determining When Negligent Harm-Causing Conduct was Wrongful..................................................57
Overview of the Prima Facie Rules..........................................................................................................57
Positive acts causing physical harm.........................................................................................................58
Omissions.................................................................................................................................................59
Pure Economic Loss..................................................................................................................................63
Part III: Intentional Harm-causing Conduct.................................................................................67
Overview of Rules for Intentional Conduct..................................................................................................67
Justifying the Claim that Wrongfulness for IHCC Depends on a Breach of a Duty not to Cause Harm
Intentionally..................................................................................................................................................67
Justification 1: There has been implied acceptance of the duty not to cause harm intentionally by the
courts.......................................................................................................................................................68
Justification 2: This makes sense based on the nature of the duty not to cause harm intentionally.....69
Law Determining When Intentional Harm-causing Conduct was Wrongful................................................72
The Prima Facie Rules..............................................................................................................................72
The Justification Ground of Consent........................................................................................................73
,Topic Four: Causation and Remoteness............................................................................75
Part I: Introduction.....................................................................................................................75
Part II: Factual Causation............................................................................................................77
The Test for Factual Causation.....................................................................................................................77
Applying the ‘But-for’ Test............................................................................................................................77
For Negligence Cases...............................................................................................................................78
Understanding the Standard of Proof..........................................................................................................78
Kinds of Cases That May Pose Problems for the ‘But-for’ Test....................................................................79
‘Lost Chance’ Cases..................................................................................................................................79
Cases Involving ‘Multiple Causes’ or ‘Concurrent Causes’......................................................................80
Cases Involving ‘Evidential Gaps’.............................................................................................................81
Systemic Negligent Omission; Unreasonable Systems Increasing the Risk of Harm...............................81
Part III: Legal Causation (Remoteness Enquiry)...........................................................................85
The Purpose of the Requirement of Legal Causation...................................................................................85
Typical Two Scenarios for Remoteness........................................................................................................86
The ‘Classic’ Remoteness Case.................................................................................................................86
The Unorthodox Scenario of ‘Relational’/ Secondary Harm...................................................................89
The Test for Legal Causation.........................................................................................................................90
Relevant factors when applying the ‘flexible test’..................................................................................92
Illustrations of the non- remoteness test’s flexibility..............................................................................93
Topic One: Introduction
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?
,This section is about Aquillian liability which is a particular kind of liability. It is sometimes
called damnum iniuria datum or ‘loss wrongfully caused’.
What is a delict?
A delict or a tort in general terms refers to a civil wrong committed by the breach of a non-
contractual duty not to cause harm by ones negligence or intentionally that is owed by one
person to another, which gives rise to a duty on the wrong-doer to compensate the victim
for the harm caused and its consequences
Thus a delict is a civil wrong that exists where all five of these elements are present:
1) there must have been harm sustained by the plaintiff, 2) conduct on the part of
the defendant, 3) that conduct must be ‘wrongful’, 4) there must be a causal
connection between the conduct and the plaintiff’s harm and 5) fault or
blameworthiness on the part of the defendant
o Example: defamation
o If any one or more of these elements are missing, then a delict has not
occurred
Other definitions of delict focus on the differences between a delict and a breach of
contract and a crime (a delict can also be either of these other two things but they
are conceptually different)
o A delict is different from a breach of contract because a delict is a breach of a
duty that is infringed is imposed by law (rather than by contract)
independently of the will of the party bound
o A delict is different from a crime because a delict is a wrong that gives rise to
a civil action for damages provided certain requirements are met and always
involves a breach of duty of one person to another (not always the case with
a crime)
Where does Aquilian Liability fall into the law of delict?
A distinction may be drawn between delicts causing patrimonial damage (harm
resulting in financial loss) and non-patrimonial damage, specifically to harm to
personality
, The classic remedy for a delict is compensation: a claim of damages for the harm
caused.
o If this harm takes the form of patrimonial loss, one uses the Aquilian action
o If the harm takes the form of injury to a personality interest (an injuria), the
claim is made in terms of the actio injuriarum.
Subdivided into corpus, farma and dignitus
o If pain and suffering associated with bodily injury, a separate action arises,
similar to the Aquilian action but of Germanic origin – an action for pain and
suffering
Less common and important than the other two forms of delictual
liability
Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions
Necessary conditions – given by the phrase ‘only if’
o Must be present, alongside other conditions, for a particular result to follow
o For example, passing delict along with other courses is a necessary condition
for getting your LLB
Sufficient – given by the phrase ‘if’
o When present on its own, causes a particular result to follow
o For example, getting 50 percent for delict is a sufficient condition for passing
delict
Necessary and sufficient conditions – if and only if
o Turning the key in your car is both a necessary and sufficient condition
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability
W
N I
C H L
Table of Contents
Topic One: Introduction......................................................................................................2
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?..................................................................................................2
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability..................................................4
Topic Two: Fault/ Culpability..............................................................................................7
Part I: Fault in the Form of Negligence..........................................................................................8
Scaffolding of Negligence and the Kruger v Coetzee Test..............................................................................8
Fagan’s Analysis of the Kruger v Coetzee Test................................................................................................9
Abstract vs Relative Approaches to Negligence...........................................................................................22
Part II: Fault in the Form of Intent.............................................................................................31
Scaffolding for Intention...............................................................................................................................31
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................31
Why intention matters to the determination of liability.........................................................................31
The Nature and Content of the Intention Required for Liability..................................................................37
Standard View on the Required Form or Direction of Will......................................................................38
Fagan’s Criticism and Comments.............................................................................................................39
Standard View on the Requirement of Consciousness of Wrongfulness................................................43
Fagan’s View of the Required Intention’s Nature and Content..............................................................44
Topic Three: Wrongfulness...............................................................................................48
Part I: The Scaffolding of Wrongfulness......................................................................................48
Where does this fit into Aquilian Liability?...................................................................................................48
Introduction to Wrongfulness......................................................................................................................48
Debate on the Meaning of Wrongfulness: Orthodox View vs Fagan’s View...............................................49
Evidence that the correct view is Fagan’s view.......................................................................................50
Part II: Negligent Harm Causing Conduct as Wrongful................................................................50
Breach of a Duty to not Cause Harm Negligently: Tracking the Legal Development...................................50
Overview..................................................................................................................................................50
A Breach of this Kind is a Requirement for Liability................................................................................51
Using ‘wrongfulness’ to refer to breach of this kind of duty...................................................................53
Necessity of Negligence...........................................................................................................................54
Law Determining When Negligent Harm-Causing Conduct was Wrongful..................................................57
Overview of the Prima Facie Rules..........................................................................................................57
Positive acts causing physical harm.........................................................................................................58
Omissions.................................................................................................................................................59
Pure Economic Loss..................................................................................................................................63
Part III: Intentional Harm-causing Conduct.................................................................................67
Overview of Rules for Intentional Conduct..................................................................................................67
Justifying the Claim that Wrongfulness for IHCC Depends on a Breach of a Duty not to Cause Harm
Intentionally..................................................................................................................................................67
Justification 1: There has been implied acceptance of the duty not to cause harm intentionally by the
courts.......................................................................................................................................................68
Justification 2: This makes sense based on the nature of the duty not to cause harm intentionally.....69
Law Determining When Intentional Harm-causing Conduct was Wrongful................................................72
The Prima Facie Rules..............................................................................................................................72
The Justification Ground of Consent........................................................................................................73
,Topic Four: Causation and Remoteness............................................................................75
Part I: Introduction.....................................................................................................................75
Part II: Factual Causation............................................................................................................77
The Test for Factual Causation.....................................................................................................................77
Applying the ‘But-for’ Test............................................................................................................................77
For Negligence Cases...............................................................................................................................78
Understanding the Standard of Proof..........................................................................................................78
Kinds of Cases That May Pose Problems for the ‘But-for’ Test....................................................................79
‘Lost Chance’ Cases..................................................................................................................................79
Cases Involving ‘Multiple Causes’ or ‘Concurrent Causes’......................................................................80
Cases Involving ‘Evidential Gaps’.............................................................................................................81
Systemic Negligent Omission; Unreasonable Systems Increasing the Risk of Harm...............................81
Part III: Legal Causation (Remoteness Enquiry)...........................................................................85
The Purpose of the Requirement of Legal Causation...................................................................................85
Typical Two Scenarios for Remoteness........................................................................................................86
The ‘Classic’ Remoteness Case.................................................................................................................86
The Unorthodox Scenario of ‘Relational’/ Secondary Harm...................................................................89
The Test for Legal Causation.........................................................................................................................90
Relevant factors when applying the ‘flexible test’..................................................................................92
Illustrations of the non- remoteness test’s flexibility..............................................................................93
Topic One: Introduction
Part I: What is Aquilian Liability?
,This section is about Aquillian liability which is a particular kind of liability. It is sometimes
called damnum iniuria datum or ‘loss wrongfully caused’.
What is a delict?
A delict or a tort in general terms refers to a civil wrong committed by the breach of a non-
contractual duty not to cause harm by ones negligence or intentionally that is owed by one
person to another, which gives rise to a duty on the wrong-doer to compensate the victim
for the harm caused and its consequences
Thus a delict is a civil wrong that exists where all five of these elements are present:
1) there must have been harm sustained by the plaintiff, 2) conduct on the part of
the defendant, 3) that conduct must be ‘wrongful’, 4) there must be a causal
connection between the conduct and the plaintiff’s harm and 5) fault or
blameworthiness on the part of the defendant
o Example: defamation
o If any one or more of these elements are missing, then a delict has not
occurred
Other definitions of delict focus on the differences between a delict and a breach of
contract and a crime (a delict can also be either of these other two things but they
are conceptually different)
o A delict is different from a breach of contract because a delict is a breach of a
duty that is infringed is imposed by law (rather than by contract)
independently of the will of the party bound
o A delict is different from a crime because a delict is a wrong that gives rise to
a civil action for damages provided certain requirements are met and always
involves a breach of duty of one person to another (not always the case with
a crime)
Where does Aquilian Liability fall into the law of delict?
A distinction may be drawn between delicts causing patrimonial damage (harm
resulting in financial loss) and non-patrimonial damage, specifically to harm to
personality
, The classic remedy for a delict is compensation: a claim of damages for the harm
caused.
o If this harm takes the form of patrimonial loss, one uses the Aquilian action
o If the harm takes the form of injury to a personality interest (an injuria), the
claim is made in terms of the actio injuriarum.
Subdivided into corpus, farma and dignitus
o If pain and suffering associated with bodily injury, a separate action arises,
similar to the Aquilian action but of Germanic origin – an action for pain and
suffering
Less common and important than the other two forms of delictual
liability
Necessary vs Sufficient Conditions
Necessary conditions – given by the phrase ‘only if’
o Must be present, alongside other conditions, for a particular result to follow
o For example, passing delict along with other courses is a necessary condition
for getting your LLB
Sufficient – given by the phrase ‘if’
o When present on its own, causes a particular result to follow
o For example, getting 50 percent for delict is a sufficient condition for passing
delict
Necessary and sufficient conditions – if and only if
o Turning the key in your car is both a necessary and sufficient condition
Part II: Scaffolding of the General Elements of Aquilian Liability
W
N I
C H L
