MRL3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 S1 2025
1.
Radipitsi can pursue his claim based on the legal concept of vicarious liability, which holds an
employer responsible for an employee’s wrongful actions if they happen during the course of
their employment. Since Mokoko was performing his duties as a truck driver when the accident
occurred, KD could be held liable for the damages rather than Mokoko himself.
For Radipitsi’s claim to succeed, he must demonstrate several key elements. First, it must be
established that Mokoko is an employee of KD, which is evident because he was driving a
company truck on a work-related task. Next, the wrongful action must have occurred while
Mokoko was carrying out his job duties. Although Mokoko made a detour to drop off a
passenger, he was still en route to deliver goods when the accident happened. Finally, there
needs to be a connection between Mokoko’s actions and his employment. While the detour was
not explicitly part of his duties, a court may find that it was still linked to his role as a driver.
KD may argue that Mokoko acted outside his job’s scope by giving a stranger a lift and taking an
unapproved detour. If the detour is deemed a personal decision, KD might avoid liability.
However, if the court finds that Mokoko’s actions were still part of his general duties, even if not
directly related to his job, KD could still be held liable. Courts tend to interpret vicarious liability
broadly, particularly when the employee’s actions are somewhat related to their work.
To recover his losses, Radipitsi should begin by sending KD a formal letter requesting
compensation for the damages. If KD refuses, Radipitsi might need to take legal action.
Additionally, Radipitsi could investigate whether KD’s insurance policy covers third-party
damage, which could help cover the costs. Given the facts, Radipitsi has a strong case for
claiming compensation for the R150,000 in damages.
2.
KD could argue that Mokoko’s actions were outside the scope of his employment at the time of
the accident. They may claim that giving a stranger a lift and taking a detour to drop them off
were personal actions, not related to his work responsibilities.
KD might assert that Mokoko’s main job was to deliver goods, and the detour was not part of
that task. In this case, KD could argue that since the detour was a personal decision and
unrelated to his job duties, they should not be held responsible for the accident.
This defense would focus on the idea that Mokoko’s actions were a significant deviation from his
work duties, meaning KD should not be liable for the damages caused by his personal choice.
3.
If KD is held responsible under vicarious liability for the damages, they cannot automatically
deduct the cost from Mokoko’s salary.
South African labour law protects employees from salary deductions unless there’s a written
agreement or a legal reason for such deductions. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act
(BCEA) and Labour Relations Act (LRA) provide guidelines on when deductions are permissible,
such as for taxes or pension contributions.
For KD to deduct money from Mokoko’s salary, they would need to prove that Mokoko was at
fault. Since vicarious liability makes the employer responsible for the actions of their
employees, KD cannot simply make Mokoko pay for the damages. Any deductions would also
have to be fair and reasonable.
1.
Radipitsi can pursue his claim based on the legal concept of vicarious liability, which holds an
employer responsible for an employee’s wrongful actions if they happen during the course of
their employment. Since Mokoko was performing his duties as a truck driver when the accident
occurred, KD could be held liable for the damages rather than Mokoko himself.
For Radipitsi’s claim to succeed, he must demonstrate several key elements. First, it must be
established that Mokoko is an employee of KD, which is evident because he was driving a
company truck on a work-related task. Next, the wrongful action must have occurred while
Mokoko was carrying out his job duties. Although Mokoko made a detour to drop off a
passenger, he was still en route to deliver goods when the accident happened. Finally, there
needs to be a connection between Mokoko’s actions and his employment. While the detour was
not explicitly part of his duties, a court may find that it was still linked to his role as a driver.
KD may argue that Mokoko acted outside his job’s scope by giving a stranger a lift and taking an
unapproved detour. If the detour is deemed a personal decision, KD might avoid liability.
However, if the court finds that Mokoko’s actions were still part of his general duties, even if not
directly related to his job, KD could still be held liable. Courts tend to interpret vicarious liability
broadly, particularly when the employee’s actions are somewhat related to their work.
To recover his losses, Radipitsi should begin by sending KD a formal letter requesting
compensation for the damages. If KD refuses, Radipitsi might need to take legal action.
Additionally, Radipitsi could investigate whether KD’s insurance policy covers third-party
damage, which could help cover the costs. Given the facts, Radipitsi has a strong case for
claiming compensation for the R150,000 in damages.
2.
KD could argue that Mokoko’s actions were outside the scope of his employment at the time of
the accident. They may claim that giving a stranger a lift and taking a detour to drop them off
were personal actions, not related to his work responsibilities.
KD might assert that Mokoko’s main job was to deliver goods, and the detour was not part of
that task. In this case, KD could argue that since the detour was a personal decision and
unrelated to his job duties, they should not be held responsible for the accident.
This defense would focus on the idea that Mokoko’s actions were a significant deviation from his
work duties, meaning KD should not be liable for the damages caused by his personal choice.
3.
If KD is held responsible under vicarious liability for the damages, they cannot automatically
deduct the cost from Mokoko’s salary.
South African labour law protects employees from salary deductions unless there’s a written
agreement or a legal reason for such deductions. The Basic Conditions of Employment Act
(BCEA) and Labour Relations Act (LRA) provide guidelines on when deductions are permissible,
such as for taxes or pension contributions.
For KD to deduct money from Mokoko’s salary, they would need to prove that Mokoko was at
fault. Since vicarious liability makes the employer responsible for the actions of their
employees, KD cannot simply make Mokoko pay for the damages. Any deductions would also
have to be fair and reasonable.
