, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
1. Lalita lives in a student residence. One night, she boils water in a kettle in the communal
kitchen. While the kettle is heating, she notices that the plug is loose and sparking slightly.
However, she brushes it off and leaves the kitchen to quickly grab her laptop from her room. As
Lalita exits, she sees Amir, another resident, walking into the kitchen carrying a bag. Lalita does
not mention the sparking plug to him. A few minutes later, the plug overheats and starts a small
electrical fire. In an attempt to move the kettle, Amir burns his hand, and both his bag and the
kitchen counter are damaged. Subsequently, Amir decides to sue Lalita for his injury and the
damage to his bag. Discuss whether the element of conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim
against Lalita.
Answer 1
In the South African law of delict, the establishment of liability is predicated upon the satisfaction of
five fundamental elements: conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and harm or damage. The
following discussion focuses exclusively on the first element, conduct, within the context of the
scenario involving Lalita and Amir. For Amir to succeed in a delictual claim against Lalita, he must
first demonstrate that Lalita’s behavior—specifically her failure to warn him about the sparking
plug—constitutes "conduct" in the legal sense.
The Nature and Definition of Conduct
Conduct is the foundational element of a delict; it is the "damage-causing event" or the external
manifestation of a human will that initiates the chain of events leading to harm1 . Without conduct,
there can be no delictual liability, as the law does not punish thoughts or status but only actions or
omissions that affect the external world2 . In legal theory, conduct is defined as a voluntary human
act or omission1. This definition encompasses two primary characteristics: it must be a human act,
and it must be voluntary.
Firstly, the requirement that conduct be "human" implies that only the actions of natural persons (or
the acts of representatives of juristic persons) can give rise to delictual liability1. Acts of animals or
natural occurrences (such as a lightning strike) do not constitute "conduct" unless they are directed or
controlled by a human being. In the present scenario, Lalita is a human being, and thus any act or
omission attributed to her satisfies this requirement.
Secondly, and more critically, the conduct must be voluntary. Voluntariness in this context does not
mean that the person intended the specific harmful consequences of their act; rather, it means that the
person was capable of controlling their bodily movements or the failure to move through their will2.
If a person acts while in a state where their mind does not control their body, such as during an
epileptic fit or while sleepwalking, the conduct is considered involuntary and therefore does not
satisfy the element of conduct3 . In Lalita’s case, she consciously noticed the sparking plug, made a
mental assessment to "brush it off," and decided to leave the kitchen. These are deliberate, controlled
movements of the mind and body, confirming that her behavior was voluntary.
1: (J Neethling & Potgieter 2020, 27)
2: (PVL3703, Study Guide, 16)
3: (J Neethling & Potgieter 2020, 28)
1. Lalita lives in a student residence. One night, she boils water in a kettle in the communal
kitchen. While the kettle is heating, she notices that the plug is loose and sparking slightly.
However, she brushes it off and leaves the kitchen to quickly grab her laptop from her room. As
Lalita exits, she sees Amir, another resident, walking into the kitchen carrying a bag. Lalita does
not mention the sparking plug to him. A few minutes later, the plug overheats and starts a small
electrical fire. In an attempt to move the kettle, Amir burns his hand, and both his bag and the
kitchen counter are damaged. Subsequently, Amir decides to sue Lalita for his injury and the
damage to his bag. Discuss whether the element of conduct is satisfied in Amir’s delictual claim
against Lalita.
Answer 1
In the South African law of delict, the establishment of liability is predicated upon the satisfaction of
five fundamental elements: conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and harm or damage. The
following discussion focuses exclusively on the first element, conduct, within the context of the
scenario involving Lalita and Amir. For Amir to succeed in a delictual claim against Lalita, he must
first demonstrate that Lalita’s behavior—specifically her failure to warn him about the sparking
plug—constitutes "conduct" in the legal sense.
The Nature and Definition of Conduct
Conduct is the foundational element of a delict; it is the "damage-causing event" or the external
manifestation of a human will that initiates the chain of events leading to harm1 . Without conduct,
there can be no delictual liability, as the law does not punish thoughts or status but only actions or
omissions that affect the external world2 . In legal theory, conduct is defined as a voluntary human
act or omission1. This definition encompasses two primary characteristics: it must be a human act,
and it must be voluntary.
Firstly, the requirement that conduct be "human" implies that only the actions of natural persons (or
the acts of representatives of juristic persons) can give rise to delictual liability1. Acts of animals or
natural occurrences (such as a lightning strike) do not constitute "conduct" unless they are directed or
controlled by a human being. In the present scenario, Lalita is a human being, and thus any act or
omission attributed to her satisfies this requirement.
Secondly, and more critically, the conduct must be voluntary. Voluntariness in this context does not
mean that the person intended the specific harmful consequences of their act; rather, it means that the
person was capable of controlling their bodily movements or the failure to move through their will2.
If a person acts while in a state where their mind does not control their body, such as during an
epileptic fit or while sleepwalking, the conduct is considered involuntary and therefore does not
satisfy the element of conduct3 . In Lalita’s case, she consciously noticed the sparking plug, made a
mental assessment to "brush it off," and decided to leave the kitchen. These are deliberate, controlled
movements of the mind and body, confirming that her behavior was voluntary.
1: (J Neethling & Potgieter 2020, 27)
2: (PVL3703, Study Guide, 16)
3: (J Neethling & Potgieter 2020, 28)
