, QUESTION 1
1.1. FALSE – Damages in South African law are primarily compensatory, not punitive. Their aim is
to restore the plaintiff, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in had the wrong
not occurred.¹
1.2. FALSE – Only harm that is recognised as legally compensable damage qualifies. Harm that is
too remote, contrary to public policy, or not protected by a legal interest does not give rise to a
damages claim.²
1.3. TRUE – Patrimonial loss (actual financial loss) includes damnum emergens (actual expenses or
diminution in assets) and lucrum cessans (profit that would have been made but for the wrong).³
1.4. FALSE – Factual causation is determined by the “but-for” test (conditio sine qua non), not by
fairness or policy. Fairness and policy considerations apply to legal causation, not factual
causation.⁴
1.5. TRUE – Legal causation limits liability by excluding losses that are too remote (i.e., not
sufficiently connected to the wrongful conduct). This is tested through flexible criteria such as
reasonable foreseeability and direct consequences.⁵
1.6. FALSE – Future loss (e.g., future medical expenses or loss of future earnings) can be claimed
provided it is proven with reasonable certainty. The court awards a once‑ off sum that estimates
the present value of the future loss.⁶
1.7. FALSE – Non‑ patrimonial damages (e.g., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life) are not
calculated by precise mathematical formulas; courts use a broad, equitable discretion based on
previous awards and the severity of the injury.⁷
1.8. FALSE – The once‑ and‑ for‑ all rule requires a plaintiff to claim all damages (patrimonial
and non‑ patrimonial) arising from a single cause of action in one lawsuit. Splitting claims is
generally prohibited.⁸
1.9. TRUE – The plaintiff has a duty to mitigate loss. Unreasonable failure to take steps to limit the
loss results in a reduction of damages – the plaintiff cannot recover for the avoidable portion.⁹
1.10. FALSE – Under South African law, contributory negligence does not completely exclude the
claim; damages are apportioned according to the degree of fault. The claim is only completely
excluded if the plaintiff was solely responsible (100% contributory negligence).¹⁰
Footnotes:
¹ Visser & Potgieter Law of Damages (3rd ed, Juta 2021) 12–14.
² Neethling, Potgieter & Visser Law of Delict (7th ed, LexisNexis 2015) 301–302.
³ Union Government (Minister of Railways) v Warneke 1911 AD 657; Visser & Potgieter 45–46.
⁴ International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 (1) SA 680 (A) 700E–G; Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC) para 40.
⁵ S v Mokgethi 1990 (1) SA 32 (A); Fourways Haulage v SA National Roads Agency 2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA) para 12.
⁶ Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) 113E–115H.
⁷ Road Accident Fund v Marunga 2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA) para 10; Visser & Potgieter 412–415.
⁸ Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A) 838; Mpedi v Road Accident Fund 2006 (6) SA 182 (W) para 15.
⁹ Lifeguard Investment Co (Pty) Ltd v S A Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 781 (W); Visser & Potgieter 197–202.
¹⁰ Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, ss 1(1) and 2(1); Jones v Santam Bpk 1965 (2) SA 542 (A).
1.1. FALSE – Damages in South African law are primarily compensatory, not punitive. Their aim is
to restore the plaintiff, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in had the wrong
not occurred.¹
1.2. FALSE – Only harm that is recognised as legally compensable damage qualifies. Harm that is
too remote, contrary to public policy, or not protected by a legal interest does not give rise to a
damages claim.²
1.3. TRUE – Patrimonial loss (actual financial loss) includes damnum emergens (actual expenses or
diminution in assets) and lucrum cessans (profit that would have been made but for the wrong).³
1.4. FALSE – Factual causation is determined by the “but-for” test (conditio sine qua non), not by
fairness or policy. Fairness and policy considerations apply to legal causation, not factual
causation.⁴
1.5. TRUE – Legal causation limits liability by excluding losses that are too remote (i.e., not
sufficiently connected to the wrongful conduct). This is tested through flexible criteria such as
reasonable foreseeability and direct consequences.⁵
1.6. FALSE – Future loss (e.g., future medical expenses or loss of future earnings) can be claimed
provided it is proven with reasonable certainty. The court awards a once‑ off sum that estimates
the present value of the future loss.⁶
1.7. FALSE – Non‑ patrimonial damages (e.g., pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life) are not
calculated by precise mathematical formulas; courts use a broad, equitable discretion based on
previous awards and the severity of the injury.⁷
1.8. FALSE – The once‑ and‑ for‑ all rule requires a plaintiff to claim all damages (patrimonial
and non‑ patrimonial) arising from a single cause of action in one lawsuit. Splitting claims is
generally prohibited.⁸
1.9. TRUE – The plaintiff has a duty to mitigate loss. Unreasonable failure to take steps to limit the
loss results in a reduction of damages – the plaintiff cannot recover for the avoidable portion.⁹
1.10. FALSE – Under South African law, contributory negligence does not completely exclude the
claim; damages are apportioned according to the degree of fault. The claim is only completely
excluded if the plaintiff was solely responsible (100% contributory negligence).¹⁰
Footnotes:
¹ Visser & Potgieter Law of Damages (3rd ed, Juta 2021) 12–14.
² Neethling, Potgieter & Visser Law of Delict (7th ed, LexisNexis 2015) 301–302.
³ Union Government (Minister of Railways) v Warneke 1911 AD 657; Visser & Potgieter 45–46.
⁴ International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 (1) SA 680 (A) 700E–G; Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC) para 40.
⁵ S v Mokgethi 1990 (1) SA 32 (A); Fourways Haulage v SA National Roads Agency 2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA) para 12.
⁶ Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) 113E–115H.
⁷ Road Accident Fund v Marunga 2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA) para 10; Visser & Potgieter 412–415.
⁸ Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A) 838; Mpedi v Road Accident Fund 2006 (6) SA 182 (W) para 15.
⁹ Lifeguard Investment Co (Pty) Ltd v S A Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 781 (W); Visser & Potgieter 197–202.
¹⁰ Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, ss 1(1) and 2(1); Jones v Santam Bpk 1965 (2) SA 542 (A).
