LPL4802 OCTOBER
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30
October 2024
, LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER
PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
QUESTION 1 (ESSAY) NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
AND DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS (4 pages, including rubric) PLEASE NOTE:
You must present your answer in the form of an essay. Its marking rubric is attached with
this examination paper. Study the case Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education
and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) a copy of it is attached here and answer the questions
below. N.B.: The question below must be answered in the form of an essay. At the end of
your essay, attach the rubric that was supplied to you along with your exam answer script.
1.1 Discuss what the plaintiff needs to prove to be successful in a claim for shock
(psychiatric injury) as a head of damage for non-patrimonial loss. Refer to relevant
authority in your answer. (15) 1.2 Critically analyse the reasons (advanced by the court)
why Constitutional damages, claimed in addition to common law damages, must at
present necessarily fail. (10) TOTAL MARKS FOR THIS QUESTION: [25] 3
Essay on Nature and Assessment of Non-
Patrimonial Loss and Damages for
Patrimonial Loss
In the case of Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA),
the court addressed the complex issue of non-patrimonial loss and damages for patrimonial loss. This
essay will discuss the requirements for a successful claim for shock (psychiatric injury) as a head of
damage for non-patrimonial loss and critically analyze the reasons why Constitutional damages
claimed in addition to common law damages must presently fail.
Claim for Shock (Psychiatric Injury) as a Head of Damage for Non-Patrimonial Loss
To succeed in a claim for shock as a head of damage for non-patrimonial loss, the plaintiff needs to
prove several key elements. Firstly, the plaintiff must establish that they have suffered a recognized
psychiatric injury as a result of the defendant's negligence or wrongful act. This requires medical
evidence to demonstrate the existence and extent of the psychiatric injury. The case of Alcock v Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 provides authority for the requirement of a
recognized psychiatric injury in such claims.
Secondly, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the psychiatric injury was a foreseeable consequence of
the defendant's conduct. This involves proving that a reasonable person in the defendant's position
would have foreseen the risk of causing psychiatric harm to the plaintiff. The case of Page v Smith
[1996] AC 155 is relevant in establishing the foreseeability of psychiatric injury in negligence claims.
Furthermore, the plaintiff needs to show that they have a close relationship of love and affection with
the primary victim of the defendant's negligence, or that they were directly involved in the shocking
event. This requirement aims to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric injury to those who have a
NOVEMBER PORTFOLIO
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30
October 2024
, LPL4802 OCTOBER NOVEMBER
PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2024 - DUE 30 October 2024
QUESTION 1 (ESSAY) NATURE AND ASSESSMENT OF NON-PATRIMONIAL LOSS
AND DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS (4 pages, including rubric) PLEASE NOTE:
You must present your answer in the form of an essay. Its marking rubric is attached with
this examination paper. Study the case Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education
and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA) a copy of it is attached here and answer the questions
below. N.B.: The question below must be answered in the form of an essay. At the end of
your essay, attach the rubric that was supplied to you along with your exam answer script.
1.1 Discuss what the plaintiff needs to prove to be successful in a claim for shock
(psychiatric injury) as a head of damage for non-patrimonial loss. Refer to relevant
authority in your answer. (15) 1.2 Critically analyse the reasons (advanced by the court)
why Constitutional damages, claimed in addition to common law damages, must at
present necessarily fail. (10) TOTAL MARKS FOR THIS QUESTION: [25] 3
Essay on Nature and Assessment of Non-
Patrimonial Loss and Damages for
Patrimonial Loss
In the case of Komape and others v Minister of Basic Education and Others 2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA),
the court addressed the complex issue of non-patrimonial loss and damages for patrimonial loss. This
essay will discuss the requirements for a successful claim for shock (psychiatric injury) as a head of
damage for non-patrimonial loss and critically analyze the reasons why Constitutional damages
claimed in addition to common law damages must presently fail.
Claim for Shock (Psychiatric Injury) as a Head of Damage for Non-Patrimonial Loss
To succeed in a claim for shock as a head of damage for non-patrimonial loss, the plaintiff needs to
prove several key elements. Firstly, the plaintiff must establish that they have suffered a recognized
psychiatric injury as a result of the defendant's negligence or wrongful act. This requires medical
evidence to demonstrate the existence and extent of the psychiatric injury. The case of Alcock v Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310 provides authority for the requirement of a
recognized psychiatric injury in such claims.
Secondly, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the psychiatric injury was a foreseeable consequence of
the defendant's conduct. This involves proving that a reasonable person in the defendant's position
would have foreseen the risk of causing psychiatric harm to the plaintiff. The case of Page v Smith
[1996] AC 155 is relevant in establishing the foreseeability of psychiatric injury in negligence claims.
Furthermore, the plaintiff needs to show that they have a close relationship of love and affection with
the primary victim of the defendant's negligence, or that they were directly involved in the shocking
event. This requirement aims to limit the scope of liability for psychiatric injury to those who have a
