PVL3703 EXAM 2024
Read the fictitious scenarios below and answer the questions that follows. QUESTION 1
Brian, a school bus driver, is involved in an accident on his way back from transporting students to
their respective schools. His school bus swerved into the oncoming lane and collided with Thabo’s
car. As a result of this accident, Brian sustained serious head injuries and became unconscious,
while Thabo’s car was left badly damaged. Brian was subsequently hospitalised and eventually
regained consciousness. However, he has no recollection of how the accident occurred. During
the treatment for his head injuries, the medical practitioners determined that Brian suffered an
epileptic fit (a seizure) at the time of the accident.
1.1 Discuss with reference to relevant authority whether Brian indeed “acted” for the
purposes of the law of delict. Restrict the scope of your answer to what is asked in the
question and note in particular that the question deals with the element of conduct.
In the law of delict, the element of conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For liability
to arise in a delictual claim, there must be an action that is voluntary. Voluntary conduct means that
the person must be able to control their muscular movements by means of their will. If a person's
actions are not voluntary due to some external or internal factor, they have not "acted" for the
purposes of delict. This is often referred to as the defence of automatism.
Automatism and Voluntary Conduct
Automatism occurs when a person's conduct is involuntary due to factors such as an epileptic fit,
blackout, or unconsciousness. If the person was in such a state, their bodily movements are not
controlled by their conscious will, and therefore, they have not acted in the legal sense required for
delictual liability. The defence of automatism is recognized in cases where a defendant argues that,
although harm was caused by their actions, they did not act voluntarily, as they were in a state of
automatism.
In Molefe v Molefe, the court held that the plaintiff bears the onus of proving that the defendant
acted voluntarily. If a person suffers an epileptic fit or another condition rendering them incapable
, of controlling their actions, such as a blackout or fainting, their actions are not considered
voluntary. In this case, Brian suffered an epileptic fit while driving, which led to the accident. Given
that his epileptic fit would have rendered him incapable of controlling his actions, he could argue
that his actions were involuntary due to automatism.
Application to Brian's Case
Brian was driving the school bus when he suffered an epileptic fit, which caused the bus to swerve
into Thabo’s car. Since Brian had no control over his actions during the fit, his conduct was
involuntary at that moment. As such, the action of swerving into the oncoming lane would not be
considered a voluntary act for the purposes of the law of delict.
In the case of Victor, the court found that a driver who caused an accident during an epileptic fit
could still be found liable if it was shown that they were aware of their condition and the potential
risk. However, this relates to negligence, not the element of conduct. In Brian’s case, the focus is
solely on whether he “acted” for the purposes of delict. Since Brian’s epileptic fit deprived him of
the ability to control his actions, his conduct would likely not be classified as voluntary.
For the purposes of the law of delict, Brian did not “act” because his actions during the epileptic fit
were not voluntary. Therefore, under the element of conduct, Brian could raise the defence of
automatism, arguing that he did not have the necessary control over his actions when the accident
occurred.
Read the fictitious scenarios below and answer the questions that follows. QUESTION 1
Brian, a school bus driver, is involved in an accident on his way back from transporting students to
their respective schools. His school bus swerved into the oncoming lane and collided with Thabo’s
car. As a result of this accident, Brian sustained serious head injuries and became unconscious,
while Thabo’s car was left badly damaged. Brian was subsequently hospitalised and eventually
regained consciousness. However, he has no recollection of how the accident occurred. During
the treatment for his head injuries, the medical practitioners determined that Brian suffered an
epileptic fit (a seizure) at the time of the accident.
1.1 Discuss with reference to relevant authority whether Brian indeed “acted” for the
purposes of the law of delict. Restrict the scope of your answer to what is asked in the
question and note in particular that the question deals with the element of conduct.
In the law of delict, the element of conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For liability
to arise in a delictual claim, there must be an action that is voluntary. Voluntary conduct means that
the person must be able to control their muscular movements by means of their will. If a person's
actions are not voluntary due to some external or internal factor, they have not "acted" for the
purposes of delict. This is often referred to as the defence of automatism.
Automatism and Voluntary Conduct
Automatism occurs when a person's conduct is involuntary due to factors such as an epileptic fit,
blackout, or unconsciousness. If the person was in such a state, their bodily movements are not
controlled by their conscious will, and therefore, they have not acted in the legal sense required for
delictual liability. The defence of automatism is recognized in cases where a defendant argues that,
although harm was caused by their actions, they did not act voluntarily, as they were in a state of
automatism.
In Molefe v Molefe, the court held that the plaintiff bears the onus of proving that the defendant
acted voluntarily. If a person suffers an epileptic fit or another condition rendering them incapable
, of controlling their actions, such as a blackout or fainting, their actions are not considered
voluntary. In this case, Brian suffered an epileptic fit while driving, which led to the accident. Given
that his epileptic fit would have rendered him incapable of controlling his actions, he could argue
that his actions were involuntary due to automatism.
Application to Brian's Case
Brian was driving the school bus when he suffered an epileptic fit, which caused the bus to swerve
into Thabo’s car. Since Brian had no control over his actions during the fit, his conduct was
involuntary at that moment. As such, the action of swerving into the oncoming lane would not be
considered a voluntary act for the purposes of the law of delict.
In the case of Victor, the court found that a driver who caused an accident during an epileptic fit
could still be found liable if it was shown that they were aware of their condition and the potential
risk. However, this relates to negligence, not the element of conduct. In Brian’s case, the focus is
solely on whether he “acted” for the purposes of delict. Since Brian’s epileptic fit deprived him of
the ability to control his actions, his conduct would likely not be classified as voluntary.
For the purposes of the law of delict, Brian did not “act” because his actions during the epileptic fit
were not voluntary. Therefore, under the element of conduct, Brian could raise the defence of
automatism, arguing that he did not have the necessary control over his actions when the accident
occurred.
