QUESTION 1
Lerato while taking her routine morning jog in her neighbourhood was attacked by
Jabulani's fierce rottweiler dog, named Butch. Butch charged at Lerato
unexpectedly. Lerato, a licensed firearm owner, fearing for her safety shot and killed
Butch. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, answer the following questions:
1.1 Discuss with reference to authority if Butch’s attack on Lerato qualifies as
conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
In the context of delictual liability, conduct refers to the actions or behavior of an individual
that can result in harm or damage to another person or their property. In this scenario,
Butch's attack on Lerato would likely qualify as conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
According to South African law, delictual liability arises when there is a wrongful and
culpable act or omission that causes harm to another person or their property. In this case,
Butch's aggressive behavior towards Lerato constitutes conduct that could potentially lead
to delictual liability.
In the landmark case of Kruger v Coetzee (1966), the South African courts established the
requirements for delictual liability, stating that liability arises from conduct that is both
wrongful and culpable. Wrongfulness refers to conduct that violates a legal duty owed to
another person, while culpability involves fault or blameworthiness on the part of the person
responsible for the conduct.
In the context of Butch's attack on Lerato, several factors would need to be considered to
determine if the conduct meets the requirements for delictual liability. These factors may
include:
Whether Butch's owner, Jabulani, failed to exercise reasonable control over Butch, leading
to the attack.
Whether Butch had a history of aggressive behavior or if there were any previous incidents
involving Butch and other individuals.
Whether Lerato's actions were reasonable in response to the perceived threat posed by
Butch's attack.
Based on these considerations, if it is found that Butch's attack on Lerato resulted from a
lack of reasonable control by Jabulani or if Butch had a history of aggressive behavior,
Butch's conduct could be deemed wrongful and culpable, thus establishing the basis for
delictual liability.
, 1.2 Discuss with reference to authority whether Lerato may rely on private defence
or necessity as a ground of justification if Jabulani wants to hold Lerato delictually
liable for killing his dog.
Comprehensively distinguish in your answer between the two grounds of
justification, referring to their definitions as well as all their requirements, before
arriving at a conclusion.
In the scenario where Jabulani wants to hold Lerato delictually liable for killing his dog,
Lerato may potentially rely on private defence or necessity as grounds of justification.
However, a comprehensive analysis of both grounds is necessary to determine their
applicability in this situation.
Private defence, also known as self-defence or private defence, is a ground of
justification that allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves or
others against a wrongful attack. On the other hand, necessity is a ground of justification
that permits an individual to commit a wrongful act to prevent a greater harm from
occurring.
To assess whether Lerato may rely on private defence or necessity, let's examine the
requirements of each:
Wrongful attack:
Private defence: There must have been a wrongful attack directed against a legally-
recognized interest, such as life or bodily integrity.
Necessity: The situation must involve the prevention of a greater harm, and the act must
be the only reasonable means of avoiding that harm.
Legally-recognized interest:
Private defence: The attack must have been directed against a legally-recognized
interest, typically life or bodily integrity.
Necessity: The act must be necessary to prevent a greater harm, regardless of the
specific interest being protected.
Commencement or threatening attack:
Private defence: The attack must have commenced or be imminent.
Necessity: The situation must involve an imminent threat of harm that necessitates
immediate action.
Fault of the attacker:
Private defence: The fault of the attacker is irrelevant; the defender may still rely on
private defence even if the attacker is not at fault.
Necessity: The harm caused by the defender must be a direct result of the necessity to
prevent a greater harm.
Aimed at the defender:
Private defence: The defender may defend themselves or another person's person or
property against the attack.
Lerato while taking her routine morning jog in her neighbourhood was attacked by
Jabulani's fierce rottweiler dog, named Butch. Butch charged at Lerato
unexpectedly. Lerato, a licensed firearm owner, fearing for her safety shot and killed
Butch. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, answer the following questions:
1.1 Discuss with reference to authority if Butch’s attack on Lerato qualifies as
conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
In the context of delictual liability, conduct refers to the actions or behavior of an individual
that can result in harm or damage to another person or their property. In this scenario,
Butch's attack on Lerato would likely qualify as conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
According to South African law, delictual liability arises when there is a wrongful and
culpable act or omission that causes harm to another person or their property. In this case,
Butch's aggressive behavior towards Lerato constitutes conduct that could potentially lead
to delictual liability.
In the landmark case of Kruger v Coetzee (1966), the South African courts established the
requirements for delictual liability, stating that liability arises from conduct that is both
wrongful and culpable. Wrongfulness refers to conduct that violates a legal duty owed to
another person, while culpability involves fault or blameworthiness on the part of the person
responsible for the conduct.
In the context of Butch's attack on Lerato, several factors would need to be considered to
determine if the conduct meets the requirements for delictual liability. These factors may
include:
Whether Butch's owner, Jabulani, failed to exercise reasonable control over Butch, leading
to the attack.
Whether Butch had a history of aggressive behavior or if there were any previous incidents
involving Butch and other individuals.
Whether Lerato's actions were reasonable in response to the perceived threat posed by
Butch's attack.
Based on these considerations, if it is found that Butch's attack on Lerato resulted from a
lack of reasonable control by Jabulani or if Butch had a history of aggressive behavior,
Butch's conduct could be deemed wrongful and culpable, thus establishing the basis for
delictual liability.
, 1.2 Discuss with reference to authority whether Lerato may rely on private defence
or necessity as a ground of justification if Jabulani wants to hold Lerato delictually
liable for killing his dog.
Comprehensively distinguish in your answer between the two grounds of
justification, referring to their definitions as well as all their requirements, before
arriving at a conclusion.
In the scenario where Jabulani wants to hold Lerato delictually liable for killing his dog,
Lerato may potentially rely on private defence or necessity as grounds of justification.
However, a comprehensive analysis of both grounds is necessary to determine their
applicability in this situation.
Private defence, also known as self-defence or private defence, is a ground of
justification that allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves or
others against a wrongful attack. On the other hand, necessity is a ground of justification
that permits an individual to commit a wrongful act to prevent a greater harm from
occurring.
To assess whether Lerato may rely on private defence or necessity, let's examine the
requirements of each:
Wrongful attack:
Private defence: There must have been a wrongful attack directed against a legally-
recognized interest, such as life or bodily integrity.
Necessity: The situation must involve the prevention of a greater harm, and the act must
be the only reasonable means of avoiding that harm.
Legally-recognized interest:
Private defence: The attack must have been directed against a legally-recognized
interest, typically life or bodily integrity.
Necessity: The act must be necessary to prevent a greater harm, regardless of the
specific interest being protected.
Commencement or threatening attack:
Private defence: The attack must have commenced or be imminent.
Necessity: The situation must involve an imminent threat of harm that necessitates
immediate action.
Fault of the attacker:
Private defence: The fault of the attacker is irrelevant; the defender may still rely on
private defence even if the attacker is not at fault.
Necessity: The harm caused by the defender must be a direct result of the necessity to
prevent a greater harm.
Aimed at the defender:
Private defence: The defender may defend themselves or another person's person or
property against the attack.
