PVL3703
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, 1. Definition of Conduct in Delict
In delict, conduct refers to human behaviour, which may consist of a positive act or
an omission. For conduct to be actionable in delict, it must be:
voluntary; and
performed by a human being.
The key issue in Tumelo's case is whether his conduct was voluntary.
2. Voluntariness and Automatism
In South African law, voluntary conduct requires that the person has conscious
control over their actions. If the person acts while unconscious or in a state of
automatism, such as sleepwalking, the law considers the conduct involuntary and
therefore not actionable under delict.
Relevant case law:
S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A): Although this was a criminal case, the court
held that involuntary conduct (due to intoxication) cannot be considered
conduct in the legal sense. The principles are similar in delict.
Weber v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1983 (1) SA 381 (A): The
Appellate Division accepted that involuntary conduct, such as automatism or
unconscious behaviour, is not regarded as conduct in law.
If Tumelo was indeed sleepwalking, then he was not acting with volitional control
over his actions. His actions would then fall under automatism, and therefore do not
constitute conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, 1. Definition of Conduct in Delict
In delict, conduct refers to human behaviour, which may consist of a positive act or
an omission. For conduct to be actionable in delict, it must be:
voluntary; and
performed by a human being.
The key issue in Tumelo's case is whether his conduct was voluntary.
2. Voluntariness and Automatism
In South African law, voluntary conduct requires that the person has conscious
control over their actions. If the person acts while unconscious or in a state of
automatism, such as sleepwalking, the law considers the conduct involuntary and
therefore not actionable under delict.
Relevant case law:
S v Chretien 1981 (1) SA 1097 (A): Although this was a criminal case, the court
held that involuntary conduct (due to intoxication) cannot be considered
conduct in the legal sense. The principles are similar in delict.
Weber v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1983 (1) SA 381 (A): The
Appellate Division accepted that involuntary conduct, such as automatism or
unconscious behaviour, is not regarded as conduct in law.
If Tumelo was indeed sleepwalking, then he was not acting with volitional control
over his actions. His actions would then fall under automatism, and therefore do not
constitute conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
