PVL3703
Assignment 1
DUE 2025
, Law of Delict: Legal Opinion on Conduct
In South African law, for a person to be held liable under the law of delict, five core
elements must be satisfied: (1) conduct, (2) wrongfulness, (3) fault, (4) causation,
and (5) harm. This analysis will focus on the first of these—conduct—and assess
whether Tumelo’s behaviour meets this foundational requirement for delictual liability.
Definition of Conduct in Delict
“Conduct” in the context of delictual liability refers to an act or omission carried out
voluntarily by a natural person. It must be a willed or conscious action. A person must
have physical control over their body and awareness of their behaviour at the relevant
time. If someone acts involuntarily—such as during sleep, unconsciousness, or while
experiencing automatism—their actions are generally not legally recognised as
"conduct" for the purposes of establishing delictual liability.
This principle is essential because the presence of conduct is a prerequisite for
liability. If the individual did not act voluntarily, no delict can be established, regardless
of the harm caused or other elements.
Tumelo’s Actions and Voluntariness
According to the facts, Tumelo stabbed Mandla while sleepwalking. He mistakenly
believed that he was under attack, although Mandla was actually attempting to assist
him. Because Tumelo was sleepwalking at the time, it must be determined whether this
state negated voluntariness.
Under South African legal principles, actions performed while sleepwalking are typically
regarded as involuntary. The individual is not conscious or aware of their surroundings
or conduct, and thus cannot be said to be in control of their actions.
This principle was recognised in the criminal law case R v Mkize 1959 (2) SA 260 (N),
where the court held that a person who committed a killing while sleepwalking could not
be held criminally responsible, as their actions were involuntary. Although that case
Assignment 1
DUE 2025
, Law of Delict: Legal Opinion on Conduct
In South African law, for a person to be held liable under the law of delict, five core
elements must be satisfied: (1) conduct, (2) wrongfulness, (3) fault, (4) causation,
and (5) harm. This analysis will focus on the first of these—conduct—and assess
whether Tumelo’s behaviour meets this foundational requirement for delictual liability.
Definition of Conduct in Delict
“Conduct” in the context of delictual liability refers to an act or omission carried out
voluntarily by a natural person. It must be a willed or conscious action. A person must
have physical control over their body and awareness of their behaviour at the relevant
time. If someone acts involuntarily—such as during sleep, unconsciousness, or while
experiencing automatism—their actions are generally not legally recognised as
"conduct" for the purposes of establishing delictual liability.
This principle is essential because the presence of conduct is a prerequisite for
liability. If the individual did not act voluntarily, no delict can be established, regardless
of the harm caused or other elements.
Tumelo’s Actions and Voluntariness
According to the facts, Tumelo stabbed Mandla while sleepwalking. He mistakenly
believed that he was under attack, although Mandla was actually attempting to assist
him. Because Tumelo was sleepwalking at the time, it must be determined whether this
state negated voluntariness.
Under South African legal principles, actions performed while sleepwalking are typically
regarded as involuntary. The individual is not conscious or aware of their surroundings
or conduct, and thus cannot be said to be in control of their actions.
This principle was recognised in the criminal law case R v Mkize 1959 (2) SA 260 (N),
where the court held that a person who committed a killing while sleepwalking could not
be held criminally responsible, as their actions were involuntary. Although that case
