PVL3702
OCTOBER NOVEMBER EXAM 2024
DUE DATE: NOVEMBER 2024
, Question 1
1.1 Voluntary Conduct and Delictual Liability
An act, referred to as conduct, is a fundamental prerequisite for delictual liability. Conduct is
defined as a voluntary human act or omission. For delictual liability to arise, there must be a
voluntary act, which implies that an individual must have the capacity to control their bodily
movements in accordance with their will. In other words, they must be accountable for their
actions.
Voluntary conduct does not merely mean the absence of compulsion or reflex actions; it
requires that the person responsible for an act is of sound mind, not affected by conditions
like epilepsy or a heart attack, and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. They must
also be able to act in accordance with their accountability. If an individual’s actions fail to
meet these criteria for voluntary conduct, they cannot be held liable because their actions do
not qualify as conduct under the law. Consequently, this precludes delictual liability.
In the given scenario, Brian was involved in an accident, and medical evidence revealed that
he suffered an epileptic seizure at the time of the incident. His actions, therefore, do not
constitute voluntary human conduct. Since he was unable to control his muscular
movements due to the seizure, his actions fall under the legal doctrine of automatism.
Automatism refers to actions committed without conscious volition, meaning the individual
acted without will or intention. In Brian’s case, automatism applies, and he cannot be
considered to have acted for the purposes of delictual liability.
1.2 Limitations of the Defence of Automatism
The defence of automatism, however, is not absolute and will fail under certain
circumstances. One such situation is where the individual intentionally creates conditions in
which they act involuntarily to harm another person. This is referred to as actio libera in
causa. Under this principle, a person who deliberately or negligently places themselves in a
situation where they are likely to commit an act they might not otherwise have had the
courage or opportunity to commit remains culpable for their actions. Even if their conduct
was involuntary or lacked the appropriate mental element at the time, they are still deemed
responsible for the crime.
Additionally, the defence of automatism is invalid where the person is aware that they are
prone to automatic conduct but acts negligently regarding that knowledge. For instance, if a
wrongdoer foresees that harm could occur due to their state of automatism and fails to take
reasonable precautions to prevent it, their negligence precludes the defence.
In Brian’s case, if it can be established that he knew of his susceptibility to epileptic seizures
and failed to take adequate measures, such as avoiding driving, he would be considered
negligent. Consequently, he would not be able to rely on the defence of automatism, as his
negligence would override the involuntary nature of his conduct at the time of the accident.
This highlights the importance of foreseeability and accountability in determining liability
under the law of delict.
OCTOBER NOVEMBER EXAM 2024
DUE DATE: NOVEMBER 2024
, Question 1
1.1 Voluntary Conduct and Delictual Liability
An act, referred to as conduct, is a fundamental prerequisite for delictual liability. Conduct is
defined as a voluntary human act or omission. For delictual liability to arise, there must be a
voluntary act, which implies that an individual must have the capacity to control their bodily
movements in accordance with their will. In other words, they must be accountable for their
actions.
Voluntary conduct does not merely mean the absence of compulsion or reflex actions; it
requires that the person responsible for an act is of sound mind, not affected by conditions
like epilepsy or a heart attack, and capable of distinguishing right from wrong. They must
also be able to act in accordance with their accountability. If an individual’s actions fail to
meet these criteria for voluntary conduct, they cannot be held liable because their actions do
not qualify as conduct under the law. Consequently, this precludes delictual liability.
In the given scenario, Brian was involved in an accident, and medical evidence revealed that
he suffered an epileptic seizure at the time of the incident. His actions, therefore, do not
constitute voluntary human conduct. Since he was unable to control his muscular
movements due to the seizure, his actions fall under the legal doctrine of automatism.
Automatism refers to actions committed without conscious volition, meaning the individual
acted without will or intention. In Brian’s case, automatism applies, and he cannot be
considered to have acted for the purposes of delictual liability.
1.2 Limitations of the Defence of Automatism
The defence of automatism, however, is not absolute and will fail under certain
circumstances. One such situation is where the individual intentionally creates conditions in
which they act involuntarily to harm another person. This is referred to as actio libera in
causa. Under this principle, a person who deliberately or negligently places themselves in a
situation where they are likely to commit an act they might not otherwise have had the
courage or opportunity to commit remains culpable for their actions. Even if their conduct
was involuntary or lacked the appropriate mental element at the time, they are still deemed
responsible for the crime.
Additionally, the defence of automatism is invalid where the person is aware that they are
prone to automatic conduct but acts negligently regarding that knowledge. For instance, if a
wrongdoer foresees that harm could occur due to their state of automatism and fails to take
reasonable precautions to prevent it, their negligence precludes the defence.
In Brian’s case, if it can be established that he knew of his susceptibility to epileptic seizures
and failed to take adequate measures, such as avoiding driving, he would be considered
negligent. Consequently, he would not be able to rely on the defence of automatism, as his
negligence would override the involuntary nature of his conduct at the time of the accident.
This highlights the importance of foreseeability and accountability in determining liability
under the law of delict.
