PVL3703
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: August 2025
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
In the law of delict, conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For liability to arise,
the act must be voluntary – meaning that it is under the conscious control of the person’s
will.1 Involuntary conduct does not amount to actionable conduct in delict. Tumelo seeks to
raise the defence of automatism, which entails a denial that his act was voluntary. This
includes states such as sleepwalking, unconsciousness, or epileptic seizures.1
According to case law and academic authority, automatism negates the element of conduct.
In Molefe v Mahaeng, it was held that the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant acted voluntarily.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
In the law of delict, conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For conduct
to be actionable, it must be voluntary, meaning the actor must be in control of their
bodily movements through the exercise of will.1 If a person acts involuntarily, such as
during sleepwalking or a blackout, they may raise the defence of automatism,
arguing that their actions do not meet the legal requirement of conduct.2
In this matter, Tumelo suffers from insomnia and has a known history of
sleepwalking, for which his doctor prescribed medication. On the relevant day,
Tumelo failed to take his medication and, while sleepwalking, stabbed Mandla under
the mistaken belief that he was being attacked. The issue is whether Tumelo’s
conduct can be regarded as voluntary for delictual liability purposes.
Generally, conditions such as sleep, unconsciousness, and sleepwalking may render
a person incapable of voluntary conduct.3 However, the law also recognises that a
person cannot escape liability if they intentionally or negligently place themselves in
such a state. This principle is known as actio libera in causa, meaning a person
cannot rely on automatism if they are culpable for creating the state in which they
acted mechanically.4
In Victor v Minister of Justice, the court held that a person who knowingly suffered
epileptic seizures and still chose to drive a vehicle could not escape liability, as a
reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of harm.5 Similarly, in S v Du
Plessis, the accused was found not guilty as he blacked out involuntarily due to low
blood pressure without prior warning.6
Unlike in Du Plessis, Tumelo’s failure to take his prescribed medication makes his
case more akin to the Victor scenario. His prior knowledge of his sleepwalking
condition and prescribed treatment imposes a duty of care. By failing to take his
medication, he acted negligently and created the circumstances in which he later
1
Neethling J & Potgieter JM, Law of Delict, 8th ed (2020) 34.
2
Ibid 35.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid 38.
5
Victor v Minister of Justice 1943 TPD 77.
6
S v Du Plessis 1981 (3) SA 382 (A).
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: August 2025
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
In the law of delict, conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For liability to arise,
the act must be voluntary – meaning that it is under the conscious control of the person’s
will.1 Involuntary conduct does not amount to actionable conduct in delict. Tumelo seeks to
raise the defence of automatism, which entails a denial that his act was voluntary. This
includes states such as sleepwalking, unconsciousness, or epileptic seizures.1
According to case law and academic authority, automatism negates the element of conduct.
In Molefe v Mahaeng, it was held that the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant acted voluntarily.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
In the law of delict, conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. For conduct
to be actionable, it must be voluntary, meaning the actor must be in control of their
bodily movements through the exercise of will.1 If a person acts involuntarily, such as
during sleepwalking or a blackout, they may raise the defence of automatism,
arguing that their actions do not meet the legal requirement of conduct.2
In this matter, Tumelo suffers from insomnia and has a known history of
sleepwalking, for which his doctor prescribed medication. On the relevant day,
Tumelo failed to take his medication and, while sleepwalking, stabbed Mandla under
the mistaken belief that he was being attacked. The issue is whether Tumelo’s
conduct can be regarded as voluntary for delictual liability purposes.
Generally, conditions such as sleep, unconsciousness, and sleepwalking may render
a person incapable of voluntary conduct.3 However, the law also recognises that a
person cannot escape liability if they intentionally or negligently place themselves in
such a state. This principle is known as actio libera in causa, meaning a person
cannot rely on automatism if they are culpable for creating the state in which they
acted mechanically.4
In Victor v Minister of Justice, the court held that a person who knowingly suffered
epileptic seizures and still chose to drive a vehicle could not escape liability, as a
reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of harm.5 Similarly, in S v Du
Plessis, the accused was found not guilty as he blacked out involuntarily due to low
blood pressure without prior warning.6
Unlike in Du Plessis, Tumelo’s failure to take his prescribed medication makes his
case more akin to the Victor scenario. His prior knowledge of his sleepwalking
condition and prescribed treatment imposes a duty of care. By failing to take his
medication, he acted negligently and created the circumstances in which he later
1
Neethling J & Potgieter JM, Law of Delict, 8th ed (2020) 34.
2
Ibid 35.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid 38.
5
Victor v Minister of Justice 1943 TPD 77.
6
S v Du Plessis 1981 (3) SA 382 (A).
