PVL3703 QUALITY ANSWERS 💯💯💯 PASS GUARANTEE
MAY JUNE EXAMINATION
NAMES
STUDENT NUMBER
MODULE CODE
DATE
MAY/JUNE 2024
PVL3703
LAW OF DELICT
QUESTION 1
Lerato while taking her routine morning jog in her neighbourhood was attacked
by Jabulani's fierce rottweiler dog, named Butch. Butch charged at Lerato
unexpectedly. Lerato, a licensed firearm owner, fearing for her safety shot and
killed Butch. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, answer the following questions:
1.1 Discuss with reference to authority if Butch’s attack on Lerato qualifies as
conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
1.1 In South African law, a delict is a civil wrong that is committed by one person
against another, causing harm or injury. To establish a delict, the following elements
must be present:
• A wrongful act (dolus) or omission (culpa) by the defendant;
• Fault (culpa) on the part of the defendant;
• Harm or damage (damnum) caused to the plaintiff.
According to the authorities, an animal's attack on a person can be considered a
delictual act if it is proven that the animal was not properly controlled or that the owner
knew or ought to have known of the animal's propensity to attack.
In South African law, the owner of a dog is liable for any harm caused by the dog if:
• The owner knew or ought to have known that the dog was capable of causing
harm; and
• The owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm. (See Du Plessis v
du Plessis 1996 (2) SA 245 (A))
, In this case, it appears that Jabulani, the owner of Butch, failed to take reasonable steps
to prevent the harm caused by Butch's attack on Lerato. The sudden and unexpected
attack on Lerato suggests that Jabulani may have been aware of Butch's aggressive
nature and failed to take measures to prevent such an attack.
Therefore, it can be argued that Butch's attack on Lerato qualifies as conduct for the
purposes of delictual liability, and Jabulani may be liable for the harm caused to Lerato.
1.2 The concept of private defence and necessity is a crucial aspect of the law of
justification, which provides a defence to an accused person who has committed a
crime. In the context of the scenario presented, Lerato may argue that she acted in
private defence or necessity to kill Jabulani's dog, which would serve as a ground of
justification to avoid delictual liability. To determine whether Lerato can rely on these
grounds, it is essential to comprehensively distinguish between the two and examine
their requirements.
Private defence, as defined by the South African Law Commission (SALC) in their
report on the Law of Defences (2004), is a justification that arises when an individual
takes measures to protect themselves or others from harm. According to the SALC,
private defence is justified when the following requirements are met:
• The accused person was in imminent danger of harm or threatened with harm.
• The accused person had a reasonable belief that the harm was imminent or
threatened.
• The accused person took all reasonable steps to avoid the harm.
• The accused person took all reasonable steps to minimize the harm caused.
• The harm caused was proportionate to the threat faced.
In contrast, necessity is a justification that arises when an individual takes measures to
prevent a greater harm from occurring. The SALC defines necessity as follows:
• The accused person was confronted with a situation where they were forced to
choose between two evils.
• The accused person chose the lesser evil.
• The accused person had no other reasonable alternative.
Applying these definitions and requirements to the scenario, it is clear that Lerato's
killing of Jabulani's dog may be justified as either private defence or necessity.
MAY JUNE EXAMINATION
NAMES
STUDENT NUMBER
MODULE CODE
DATE
MAY/JUNE 2024
PVL3703
LAW OF DELICT
QUESTION 1
Lerato while taking her routine morning jog in her neighbourhood was attacked
by Jabulani's fierce rottweiler dog, named Butch. Butch charged at Lerato
unexpectedly. Lerato, a licensed firearm owner, fearing for her safety shot and
killed Butch. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, answer the following questions:
1.1 Discuss with reference to authority if Butch’s attack on Lerato qualifies as
conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
1.1 In South African law, a delict is a civil wrong that is committed by one person
against another, causing harm or injury. To establish a delict, the following elements
must be present:
• A wrongful act (dolus) or omission (culpa) by the defendant;
• Fault (culpa) on the part of the defendant;
• Harm or damage (damnum) caused to the plaintiff.
According to the authorities, an animal's attack on a person can be considered a
delictual act if it is proven that the animal was not properly controlled or that the owner
knew or ought to have known of the animal's propensity to attack.
In South African law, the owner of a dog is liable for any harm caused by the dog if:
• The owner knew or ought to have known that the dog was capable of causing
harm; and
• The owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the harm. (See Du Plessis v
du Plessis 1996 (2) SA 245 (A))
, In this case, it appears that Jabulani, the owner of Butch, failed to take reasonable steps
to prevent the harm caused by Butch's attack on Lerato. The sudden and unexpected
attack on Lerato suggests that Jabulani may have been aware of Butch's aggressive
nature and failed to take measures to prevent such an attack.
Therefore, it can be argued that Butch's attack on Lerato qualifies as conduct for the
purposes of delictual liability, and Jabulani may be liable for the harm caused to Lerato.
1.2 The concept of private defence and necessity is a crucial aspect of the law of
justification, which provides a defence to an accused person who has committed a
crime. In the context of the scenario presented, Lerato may argue that she acted in
private defence or necessity to kill Jabulani's dog, which would serve as a ground of
justification to avoid delictual liability. To determine whether Lerato can rely on these
grounds, it is essential to comprehensively distinguish between the two and examine
their requirements.
Private defence, as defined by the South African Law Commission (SALC) in their
report on the Law of Defences (2004), is a justification that arises when an individual
takes measures to protect themselves or others from harm. According to the SALC,
private defence is justified when the following requirements are met:
• The accused person was in imminent danger of harm or threatened with harm.
• The accused person had a reasonable belief that the harm was imminent or
threatened.
• The accused person took all reasonable steps to avoid the harm.
• The accused person took all reasonable steps to minimize the harm caused.
• The harm caused was proportionate to the threat faced.
In contrast, necessity is a justification that arises when an individual takes measures to
prevent a greater harm from occurring. The SALC defines necessity as follows:
• The accused person was confronted with a situation where they were forced to
choose between two evils.
• The accused person chose the lesser evil.
• The accused person had no other reasonable alternative.
Applying these definitions and requirements to the scenario, it is clear that Lerato's
killing of Jabulani's dog may be justified as either private defence or necessity.
