, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please also note that the author of this document will not be responsible for any plagiarism you
commit.
Question 1
Andrew works for a pharmaceutical company, LIFE (Pty) Ltd. Andrew has an interest in writing. In
his spare time, he writes articles for an online news website, Community News. A few months ago, gas
exploded in the area where Gas – It (Pty) Ltd is located and damaged a few houses in the community.
Andrew on the Community news website, published an article (which he wrote from his office
computer) about the explosion. In the article Andrew alleges that the explosion was due to the
negligence of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd. He lists several issues, including a lack of proper maintenance and
security measures by the company. The article named “Nick” as the managing director of Gas – It
(Pty) Ltd at the time. This article was upsetting to many readers and in a short period of time the article
had accumulated more than 100 comments – many of the comments were insulting and threatened
Nick with violence. A month after publication, Nick sent a request to Community News to remove the
comments and demanded payment of R350 000.00 in damages allegedly suffered by the company.
Nick consults you as the company’s attorney for legal advice.
1. Can Andrew ’s employer, LIFE Pty Ltd, be held vicariously liable for Andrew’s conduct,
since Andrew wrote the alleged defamatory article on his office computer? In your answer refer
to applicable law.
Can Andrew’s Employer, LIFE (Pty) Ltd, Be Held Vicariously Liable for Andrew’s Conduct?
In the given scenario, Andrew, an employee of LIFE (Pty) Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, wrote
and published an article on an online news website, Community News, alleging negligence by Gas –
It (Pty) Ltd following a gas explosion. The article, which was written on his office computer during
his spare time, accused the company of failing to maintain proper safety measures and named Nick,
the managing director of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd. The article attracted significant attention, including
insulting and threatening comments directed at Nick. Subsequently, Nick demanded the removal of
the comments and compensation of R350,000 for damages suffered by the company. The question
arises whether LIFE (Pty) Ltd, Andrew’s employer, can be held vicariously liable for Andrew’s
alleged defamatory conduct. To address this, it is necessary to examine the principles of vicarious
liability and their application to the facts of this case.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds an employer liable for the wrongful acts of an
employee, provided those acts were committed within the course and scope of their employment. For
an employer to be held vicariously liable, three key requirements must be met. First, the employee
must be liable for the delict (in this case, defamation). Second, there must be an employer-employee
relationship at the time the delict was committed. Third, the delict must have been committed by the
employee within the course and scope of their employment. In this scenario, the second requirement
is satisfied, as Andrew is an employee of LIFE (Pty) Ltd. The first requirement, whether Andrew is
liable for defamation, would depend on whether the article meets the legal criteria for defamation,
including the publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd or Nick.
However, this aspect falls outside the scope of the current question, which focuses on the potential
vicarious liability of LIFE (Pty) Ltd.
Please also note that the author of this document will not be responsible for any plagiarism you
commit.
Question 1
Andrew works for a pharmaceutical company, LIFE (Pty) Ltd. Andrew has an interest in writing. In
his spare time, he writes articles for an online news website, Community News. A few months ago, gas
exploded in the area where Gas – It (Pty) Ltd is located and damaged a few houses in the community.
Andrew on the Community news website, published an article (which he wrote from his office
computer) about the explosion. In the article Andrew alleges that the explosion was due to the
negligence of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd. He lists several issues, including a lack of proper maintenance and
security measures by the company. The article named “Nick” as the managing director of Gas – It
(Pty) Ltd at the time. This article was upsetting to many readers and in a short period of time the article
had accumulated more than 100 comments – many of the comments were insulting and threatened
Nick with violence. A month after publication, Nick sent a request to Community News to remove the
comments and demanded payment of R350 000.00 in damages allegedly suffered by the company.
Nick consults you as the company’s attorney for legal advice.
1. Can Andrew ’s employer, LIFE Pty Ltd, be held vicariously liable for Andrew’s conduct,
since Andrew wrote the alleged defamatory article on his office computer? In your answer refer
to applicable law.
Can Andrew’s Employer, LIFE (Pty) Ltd, Be Held Vicariously Liable for Andrew’s Conduct?
In the given scenario, Andrew, an employee of LIFE (Pty) Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, wrote
and published an article on an online news website, Community News, alleging negligence by Gas –
It (Pty) Ltd following a gas explosion. The article, which was written on his office computer during
his spare time, accused the company of failing to maintain proper safety measures and named Nick,
the managing director of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd. The article attracted significant attention, including
insulting and threatening comments directed at Nick. Subsequently, Nick demanded the removal of
the comments and compensation of R350,000 for damages suffered by the company. The question
arises whether LIFE (Pty) Ltd, Andrew’s employer, can be held vicariously liable for Andrew’s
alleged defamatory conduct. To address this, it is necessary to examine the principles of vicarious
liability and their application to the facts of this case.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds an employer liable for the wrongful acts of an
employee, provided those acts were committed within the course and scope of their employment. For
an employer to be held vicariously liable, three key requirements must be met. First, the employee
must be liable for the delict (in this case, defamation). Second, there must be an employer-employee
relationship at the time the delict was committed. Third, the delict must have been committed by the
employee within the course and scope of their employment. In this scenario, the second requirement
is satisfied, as Andrew is an employee of LIFE (Pty) Ltd. The first requirement, whether Andrew is
liable for defamation, would depend on whether the article meets the legal criteria for defamation,
including the publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of Gas – It (Pty) Ltd or Nick.
However, this aspect falls outside the scope of the current question, which focuses on the potential
vicarious liability of LIFE (Pty) Ltd.
