PVL3703
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: March 2026
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Whether conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim against Lalita
In the law of delict, conduct is the first element of a delict and refers to a voluntary human
act or omission (commission or omission). The enquiry is factual and focuses on whether
there was human behaviour capable of being controlled by the will (not automatism), and
whether that behaviour can be described as either a positive act or a failure to act.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,orand
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Whether conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim against Lalita
In the law of delict, conduct is the first element of a delict and refers to a voluntary human
act or omission (commission or omission). The enquiry is factual and focuses on whether
there was human behaviour capable of being controlled by the will (not automatism), and
whether that behaviour can be described as either a positive act or a failure to act.1
On these facts, Lalita’s behaviour contains both a positive act and an omission, either of
which can satisfy the conduct element
(1) Positive act (commission / commissio):
First, there is positive conduct (commissio). Lalita boils water in a kettle and continues
using the plug after she notices it is loose and sparking. This is a voluntary bodily act,
performed while she is conscious and able to control her movements. There is no
indication of automatism or any circumstance excluding voluntariness.¹ Even if she did not
intend the fire, voluntariness does not require a desire for the harmful result; it requires
that the conduct was capable of control.
(2) Omission (omissio):
Lalita also fails to warn Amir, even though she sees him enter the kitchen and she is
aware of the sparking plug. A failure to warn is a classic example of an omission which, if
voluntary, constitutes conduct.2 Lalita was conscious, present, and able to speak; nothing
suggests involuntariness or automatism. In Minister van Polisie v Ewels3, the Appellate
Division accepted that passive inaction can constitute conduct for purposes of delictual
analysis (even though liability ultimately turns on wrongfulness and a legal duty to act).²
Likewise, cases such as Halliwell v Johannesburg Municipality4 and Silva’s Fishing
Corporation v Maweza5 illustrate that a person may be legally called to account where an
initial act is followed by a subsequent failure to act, confirming that omissions fall within
the conduct
1
J Neethling and JM Potgieter Law of Delict (8th edn, LexisNexis 2020) 26–30.
2
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1).
3
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A).
4
Halliwell v Johannesburg Municipal Council 1912 AD 659
5
Silva’s Fishing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Maweza 1957 (2) SA 256 (A);
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
Accordingly, the element of conduct is satisfied: Lalita’s behaviour can be regarded as (a)
positive conduct in using and leaving the kettle connected under risky conditions, and/or
(b) an omission in failing to warn Amir or take basic precautionary steps.
OR
Element of conduct
For delictual liability, conduct means a voluntary human act (commissio) or omission
(omissio).6 It is a factual enquiry: did the defendant do something (or fail to do something)
as a human being, and was it susceptible to control by her will?7 Voluntariness does not
require that the defendant wanted the harmful result; it is enough that she was, in
principle, able to control her muscular movements or to act (for example, to speak and
warn). If conduct is involuntary (for example, unconsciousness or automatism), the
requirement fails.8
On the facts, Lalita’s conduct appears in two forms.
First, there is positive conduct. She boiled water by using the kettle and plug in the
communal kitchen. This is an intentional bodily act and therefore plainly human conduct.
Even if boiling water is ordinarily harmless, the law does not ask at the conduct stage
whether the act was wrongful or negligent; it asks only whether there was a voluntary
human act or omission.9
Second, Lalita’s conduct also includes an omission: after noticing that the plug was loose
and sparking, she left the kitchen and failed to warn Amir when she saw him entering. An
omission can constitute conduct for delictual purposes, provided it is voluntary. Here,
nothing suggests she was unconscious, compelled, or otherwise unable to warn. On her
own version, she “brushed it off” and chose not to mention it. That means the failure to
warn was susceptible to her will and therefore voluntary.
6
J Neethling, JM Potgieter and PJ Visser Law of Delict (latest edn, LexisNexis) 30–33
7
Ibid 35-36
8
Ibid
9
Ibid
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
It is important to separate conduct from wrongfulness. Whether Lalita’s omission is
actionable will later depend on wrongfulness (in omissions, usually whether a legal duty to
act positively existed) and on fault, causation and harm.10 But the conduct element itself is
satisfied once one proves the factual existence of a voluntary act or omission. In Amir’s
claim, he can therefore show conduct through both Lalita’s positive use of the kettle and
her voluntary omission to warn him of the sparking plug.
OR
Whether conduct is satisfied
In delict, conduct means a voluntary human act or omission. It is a factual enquiry: did the
defendant do something (a commission) or fail to do something (an omission) in
circumstances where the failure can be described as voluntary conduct? The question of
wrongfulness (for example, whether a legal duty to act existed) is a separate element and
is not required to prove conduct.11
On the facts, Lalita is a human actor and her behaviour is clearly capable of being
attributed to her personally (there is no suggestion of an animal, machine-only conduct, or
vicarious attribution issues). The key issue is therefore whether her behaviour was
voluntary. Voluntariness requires that the act or omission was susceptible to control by her
will, not that she wanted the harm to happen. Lalita noticed the loose, sparking plug,
“brushed it off,” and chose to leave to fetch her laptop. Those are purposive decisions
indicating normal control over her movements and speech. There is no evidence of
unconsciousness, automatism, seizure, or any other factor that would make her omission
involuntary.
Her conduct can be framed in two ways:
Commission (positive conduct): She switched on/used the kettle and left it
heating despite noticing a potentially dangerous defect. In a continuous course of
10
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597
11
J Neethling, JM Potgieter and PJ Visser Law of Delict (7 edn, LexisNexis 2015) 4–5.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
activity, what is sometimes described linguistically as an “omission” may in law
amount to deficient positive conduct (culpa in faciendo), rather than a pure failure to
act. Here, continuing the heating process while leaving the hazard unaddressed
can be seen as negligent exercise of control over the situation created in the
kitchen.12
Omission: She failed to warn Amir when she saw him enter the kitchen, and failed
to take basic steps (switch off/unplug/report) after noticing sparking. An omission
qualifies as conduct if the person could, in principle, have acted (for example, could
have given the warning) but did not.13 Lalita could have warned Amir immediately;
her failure is therefore voluntary.
Accordingly, the element of conduct is satisfied in Amir’s claim: Lalita’s behaviour
constitutes voluntary human conduct, whether characterised as a commission, an
omission, or both.
12
Neethling, Potgieter and Visser (n 1) 49–50.
13
Ibid
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: March 2026
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Whether conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim against Lalita
In the law of delict, conduct is the first element of a delict and refers to a voluntary human
act or omission (commission or omission). The enquiry is factual and focuses on whether
there was human behaviour capable of being controlled by the will (not automatism), and
whether that behaviour can be described as either a positive act or a failure to act.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,orand
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1 (3 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Whether conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim against Lalita
In the law of delict, conduct is the first element of a delict and refers to a voluntary human
act or omission (commission or omission). The enquiry is factual and focuses on whether
there was human behaviour capable of being controlled by the will (not automatism), and
whether that behaviour can be described as either a positive act or a failure to act.1
On these facts, Lalita’s behaviour contains both a positive act and an omission, either of
which can satisfy the conduct element
(1) Positive act (commission / commissio):
First, there is positive conduct (commissio). Lalita boils water in a kettle and continues
using the plug after she notices it is loose and sparking. This is a voluntary bodily act,
performed while she is conscious and able to control her movements. There is no
indication of automatism or any circumstance excluding voluntariness.¹ Even if she did not
intend the fire, voluntariness does not require a desire for the harmful result; it requires
that the conduct was capable of control.
(2) Omission (omissio):
Lalita also fails to warn Amir, even though she sees him enter the kitchen and she is
aware of the sparking plug. A failure to warn is a classic example of an omission which, if
voluntary, constitutes conduct.2 Lalita was conscious, present, and able to speak; nothing
suggests involuntariness or automatism. In Minister van Polisie v Ewels3, the Appellate
Division accepted that passive inaction can constitute conduct for purposes of delictual
analysis (even though liability ultimately turns on wrongfulness and a legal duty to act).²
Likewise, cases such as Halliwell v Johannesburg Municipality4 and Silva’s Fishing
Corporation v Maweza5 illustrate that a person may be legally called to account where an
initial act is followed by a subsequent failure to act, confirming that omissions fall within
the conduct
1
J Neethling and JM Potgieter Law of Delict (8th edn, LexisNexis 2020) 26–30.
2
Neethling and Potgieter (n 1).
3
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A).
4
Halliwell v Johannesburg Municipal Council 1912 AD 659
5
Silva’s Fishing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Maweza 1957 (2) SA 256 (A);
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
Accordingly, the element of conduct is satisfied: Lalita’s behaviour can be regarded as (a)
positive conduct in using and leaving the kettle connected under risky conditions, and/or
(b) an omission in failing to warn Amir or take basic precautionary steps.
OR
Element of conduct
For delictual liability, conduct means a voluntary human act (commissio) or omission
(omissio).6 It is a factual enquiry: did the defendant do something (or fail to do something)
as a human being, and was it susceptible to control by her will?7 Voluntariness does not
require that the defendant wanted the harmful result; it is enough that she was, in
principle, able to control her muscular movements or to act (for example, to speak and
warn). If conduct is involuntary (for example, unconsciousness or automatism), the
requirement fails.8
On the facts, Lalita’s conduct appears in two forms.
First, there is positive conduct. She boiled water by using the kettle and plug in the
communal kitchen. This is an intentional bodily act and therefore plainly human conduct.
Even if boiling water is ordinarily harmless, the law does not ask at the conduct stage
whether the act was wrongful or negligent; it asks only whether there was a voluntary
human act or omission.9
Second, Lalita’s conduct also includes an omission: after noticing that the plug was loose
and sparking, she left the kitchen and failed to warn Amir when she saw him entering. An
omission can constitute conduct for delictual purposes, provided it is voluntary. Here,
nothing suggests she was unconscious, compelled, or otherwise unable to warn. On her
own version, she “brushed it off” and chose not to mention it. That means the failure to
warn was susceptible to her will and therefore voluntary.
6
J Neethling, JM Potgieter and PJ Visser Law of Delict (latest edn, LexisNexis) 30–33
7
Ibid 35-36
8
Ibid
9
Ibid
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
It is important to separate conduct from wrongfulness. Whether Lalita’s omission is
actionable will later depend on wrongfulness (in omissions, usually whether a legal duty to
act positively existed) and on fault, causation and harm.10 But the conduct element itself is
satisfied once one proves the factual existence of a voluntary act or omission. In Amir’s
claim, he can therefore show conduct through both Lalita’s positive use of the kettle and
her voluntary omission to warn him of the sparking plug.
OR
Whether conduct is satisfied
In delict, conduct means a voluntary human act or omission. It is a factual enquiry: did the
defendant do something (a commission) or fail to do something (an omission) in
circumstances where the failure can be described as voluntary conduct? The question of
wrongfulness (for example, whether a legal duty to act existed) is a separate element and
is not required to prove conduct.11
On the facts, Lalita is a human actor and her behaviour is clearly capable of being
attributed to her personally (there is no suggestion of an animal, machine-only conduct, or
vicarious attribution issues). The key issue is therefore whether her behaviour was
voluntary. Voluntariness requires that the act or omission was susceptible to control by her
will, not that she wanted the harm to happen. Lalita noticed the loose, sparking plug,
“brushed it off,” and chose to leave to fetch her laptop. Those are purposive decisions
indicating normal control over her movements and speech. There is no evidence of
unconsciousness, automatism, seizure, or any other factor that would make her omission
involuntary.
Her conduct can be framed in two ways:
Commission (positive conduct): She switched on/used the kettle and left it
heating despite noticing a potentially dangerous defect. In a continuous course of
10
Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 (3) SA 590 (A) 597
11
J Neethling, JM Potgieter and PJ Visser Law of Delict (7 edn, LexisNexis 2015) 4–5.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
activity, what is sometimes described linguistically as an “omission” may in law
amount to deficient positive conduct (culpa in faciendo), rather than a pure failure to
act. Here, continuing the heating process while leaving the hazard unaddressed
can be seen as negligent exercise of control over the situation created in the
kitchen.12
Omission: She failed to warn Amir when she saw him enter the kitchen, and failed
to take basic steps (switch off/unplug/report) after noticing sparking. An omission
qualifies as conduct if the person could, in principle, have acted (for example, could
have given the warning) but did not.13 Lalita could have warned Amir immediately;
her failure is therefore voluntary.
Accordingly, the element of conduct is satisfied in Amir’s claim: Lalita’s behaviour
constitutes voluntary human conduct, whether characterised as a commission, an
omission, or both.
12
Neethling, Potgieter and Visser (n 1) 49–50.
13
Ibid
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
