LAW OF DELICT
20 MAY 2023
PVL3703
EXAM
ANSWERS
, ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s
policies in this regard.
2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where I have used
someone else’s work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of
referencing. Every contribution to, and quotation in, this assignment from the
work or works of other people has been referenced according to the
prescribed style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submit it as my own.
NAME: ……………………………………………………………………………………...
SIGNATURE: ……………………………………………………………………………...
STUDENT NUMBER: ……………………………………………………………………..
MODULE CODE: ...............................................................................................
DATE: ……………………………………………………………………………………....
MARK RECEIVED FOR ASSIGNMENT 01: …………………………………………..
MARK RECEIVED FOR ASSIGNMENT 02: …………………………………………..
, QUESTION 1
John works at the control tower of the O.R. Tambo Airport. His responsibility is to
regulate the movements of the aeroplanes landing and taking off. Due to a sudden
sharp drop in John’s blood pressure, he loses consciousness for five minutes. During
this period of unconsciousness, two aeroplanes collide because John did not give the
pilots the correct instructions. Did John act for the purpose of the law of delict?
Would it make a difference to your answer if John has already been under medical
treatment for a diagnosed condition of low blood pressure, but failed to take his
prescribed blood pressure medication when he should have done so earlier that
morning? Discuss in detail with reference to authority. (15)
In South African law of delict, an act can only be regarded as wrongful and attract liability if it
was done intentionally or negligently. In the case of John, it is clear that he did not
intentionally cause the collision. However, the question is whether he acted negligently and
whether his medical condition can be taken into account in determining negligence.
Negligence involves a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would
have exercised in the same circumstances. In the case of John, his sudden loss of
consciousness raises questions as to whether he was negligent in failing to take adequate
precautions to prevent such an event from occurring. The question is whether a reasonable
person in his position would have taken steps to ensure that he was fit to perform his duties,
or whether he should have taken steps to ensure that someone was available to take over in
the event of his sudden illness.
In determining whether John was negligent, the court would consider various factors,
including the nature of his duties, the likelihood and foreseeability of harm, the magnitude
and gravity of the harm that could result from his failure to take adequate precautions, and
the reasonableness and practicality of alternative precautions.
In this case, it would appear that John was negligent in failing to take adequate precautions
to ensure that he was fit to perform his duties. His failure to take his prescribed medication,
despite knowing of his medical condition, was likely a significant factor in his sudden loss of
20 MAY 2023
PVL3703
EXAM
ANSWERS
, ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s
policies in this regard.
2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where I have used
someone else’s work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of
referencing. Every contribution to, and quotation in, this assignment from the
work or works of other people has been referenced according to the
prescribed style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the
intention of passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submit it as my own.
NAME: ……………………………………………………………………………………...
SIGNATURE: ……………………………………………………………………………...
STUDENT NUMBER: ……………………………………………………………………..
MODULE CODE: ...............................................................................................
DATE: ……………………………………………………………………………………....
MARK RECEIVED FOR ASSIGNMENT 01: …………………………………………..
MARK RECEIVED FOR ASSIGNMENT 02: …………………………………………..
, QUESTION 1
John works at the control tower of the O.R. Tambo Airport. His responsibility is to
regulate the movements of the aeroplanes landing and taking off. Due to a sudden
sharp drop in John’s blood pressure, he loses consciousness for five minutes. During
this period of unconsciousness, two aeroplanes collide because John did not give the
pilots the correct instructions. Did John act for the purpose of the law of delict?
Would it make a difference to your answer if John has already been under medical
treatment for a diagnosed condition of low blood pressure, but failed to take his
prescribed blood pressure medication when he should have done so earlier that
morning? Discuss in detail with reference to authority. (15)
In South African law of delict, an act can only be regarded as wrongful and attract liability if it
was done intentionally or negligently. In the case of John, it is clear that he did not
intentionally cause the collision. However, the question is whether he acted negligently and
whether his medical condition can be taken into account in determining negligence.
Negligence involves a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would
have exercised in the same circumstances. In the case of John, his sudden loss of
consciousness raises questions as to whether he was negligent in failing to take adequate
precautions to prevent such an event from occurring. The question is whether a reasonable
person in his position would have taken steps to ensure that he was fit to perform his duties,
or whether he should have taken steps to ensure that someone was available to take over in
the event of his sudden illness.
In determining whether John was negligent, the court would consider various factors,
including the nature of his duties, the likelihood and foreseeability of harm, the magnitude
and gravity of the harm that could result from his failure to take adequate precautions, and
the reasonableness and practicality of alternative precautions.
In this case, it would appear that John was negligent in failing to take adequate precautions
to ensure that he was fit to perform his duties. His failure to take his prescribed medication,
despite knowing of his medical condition, was likely a significant factor in his sudden loss of
