University of Pretoria v Tommie Meyer Films
Doctrine of subjective rights
Subject-object relationship: right to a thing
Subject-subject relationship: others have a duty not to infringe rights
Minister of Police v Ewels
Prior conduct as requirement for liability for omission
Prior conduct or control of a dangerous object may be a factor from which a conclusion of
wrongfulness may be drawn, but it is not an essential prerequisite for wrongfulness. An omission is
seen as wrongful conduct when the circumstances of the case are such that the omission does not
oly elicit moral indignation but the legal convictions of the community also require the omission to
be regarded as wrongful, and the resulting harm to be compensated by the person who omitted to
act in a positive manner. Duty of the policeman to prevent assault on the plaintiff.
Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security
Wrongfulness as a breach of legal duty.
Test for determining wrongfulness of an omission:
An omission is wrongful if the defendant is under a legal duty to act positively to prevent the harm
suffered by the plaintiff. Legal duty exists if it is reasonable to expect of the dendeant to have taken
positive measures to prevent harm.
State v van Wyk
Private defence
Question: Whether a person may protect his property in defence by killing attacker.
Normally the law values life more highly than property.
Van Wyk set up a gun in his shop to protect property. Shot and killed burglar. Van Wyk succeeded
with defence. Van Wyk tried all other options before setting the trap-gun. Court found that it could
not reasonably expect him to sleep in his shop to protect property.
State v Goliath
Necessity (grounds of justification)
X under compulsion from Y and fearing for his own life, helped Y to kill Z. Court recognised the
communities conviction that the ordinary human being does not consider the life of another person
to be more important than his own.
Kruger v Coetzee
Test for negligence
For the purpose of liability culpa arises if:
a) A diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant
(i) Would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his
person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(ii) Would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
b) The defendant failed to take such steps
Jones v Santam
Test for negligence
A person is guilty of culpa if his conduct falls short of the standard of the diligens paterfamilias – a
standard that is always objective and which varies only in regard to the exigencies arising in any
particular circumstances. It is a standard which is the same for everybody under the same
circumstances.
New approach to negligence i.r.o. children:
1) Reasonable person test, not reasonable child
2) Accountable? If child did not meet reasonable person requirements, was he accountable?
Prior to the decision in Jones the AD accepted that once the plaintiff’s degree of negligence had
been established, it was unnecessary to inquire into the extent to which the defendant’s conduct
Doctrine of subjective rights
Subject-object relationship: right to a thing
Subject-subject relationship: others have a duty not to infringe rights
Minister of Police v Ewels
Prior conduct as requirement for liability for omission
Prior conduct or control of a dangerous object may be a factor from which a conclusion of
wrongfulness may be drawn, but it is not an essential prerequisite for wrongfulness. An omission is
seen as wrongful conduct when the circumstances of the case are such that the omission does not
oly elicit moral indignation but the legal convictions of the community also require the omission to
be regarded as wrongful, and the resulting harm to be compensated by the person who omitted to
act in a positive manner. Duty of the policeman to prevent assault on the plaintiff.
Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security
Wrongfulness as a breach of legal duty.
Test for determining wrongfulness of an omission:
An omission is wrongful if the defendant is under a legal duty to act positively to prevent the harm
suffered by the plaintiff. Legal duty exists if it is reasonable to expect of the dendeant to have taken
positive measures to prevent harm.
State v van Wyk
Private defence
Question: Whether a person may protect his property in defence by killing attacker.
Normally the law values life more highly than property.
Van Wyk set up a gun in his shop to protect property. Shot and killed burglar. Van Wyk succeeded
with defence. Van Wyk tried all other options before setting the trap-gun. Court found that it could
not reasonably expect him to sleep in his shop to protect property.
State v Goliath
Necessity (grounds of justification)
X under compulsion from Y and fearing for his own life, helped Y to kill Z. Court recognised the
communities conviction that the ordinary human being does not consider the life of another person
to be more important than his own.
Kruger v Coetzee
Test for negligence
For the purpose of liability culpa arises if:
a) A diligens paterfamilias in the position of the defendant
(i) Would foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his
person or property and causing him patrimonial loss; and
(ii) Would take reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence; and
b) The defendant failed to take such steps
Jones v Santam
Test for negligence
A person is guilty of culpa if his conduct falls short of the standard of the diligens paterfamilias – a
standard that is always objective and which varies only in regard to the exigencies arising in any
particular circumstances. It is a standard which is the same for everybody under the same
circumstances.
New approach to negligence i.r.o. children:
1) Reasonable person test, not reasonable child
2) Accountable? If child did not meet reasonable person requirements, was he accountable?
Prior to the decision in Jones the AD accepted that once the plaintiff’s degree of negligence had
been established, it was unnecessary to inquire into the extent to which the defendant’s conduct
