Trials of Dedan Kimathi
PART 5 : CAUSATION
( Neethling, Potgieter, Visser: Law of Delict, p 159 – 193
• Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) • S v Mokgethi en Andere 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) • Meevis v Sheriff, Pretoria East 1999 (2) SA 389 (T) • Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) • Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) • Gibson v Berkowitz and Another [1997] 1 All SA 99 (W) • Groenewald v Groenewald [1998] 2 All SA 335 (A) • Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton 2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA) • Van der Spuy v Minister of Correctional Services 2004 (2) SA 463 (SE)
1. GENERAL
1. causal link between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s damage is requirement for delict
2. person only liable for damage caused by him
3. causal link? - question of fact which must be answered in light of available evidence of each case
4. many theories of causation have been developed to determine causal link ( Boberg: “morass of controversy that surrounds this element of liability”
5. 2 questions: ← whether any factual relationship exists between defendant’s conduct and damages sustained by plaintiff ( so-called factual causation
← whether defendant should be held legally responsible for the damages factually caused by his conduct ( so-called legal causation
( see Minister of Police v Skosana 34 - 35
2. FACTUAL CAUSATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
6. relates to question whether factual link exists between conduct and damage ( factual causation involves the question whether the damage was the result of the defendant’s conduct “in accordance with ‘science’ or ‘objective’ notions of physical sequence” (Fleming: The Law of Torts 179)
7. how must this factual causal link be determined? ( most cases ( not difficult to decide whether causal link exists ( only difficult to formulate scientifically acceptable theory for factual causation ( most writers and Appellate Division are in favour of
( Neethling, Potgieter, Visser: Law of Delict, p 159 – 193
• Minister of Police v Skosana 1977 (1) SA 31 (A) • S v Mokgethi en Andere 1990 (1) SA 32 (A) • Meevis v Sheriff, Pretoria East 1999 (2) SA 389 (T) • Mukheiber v Raath and Another 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) • Road Accident Fund v Russell 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) • Gibson v Berkowitz and Another [1997] 1 All SA 99 (W) • Groenewald v Groenewald [1998] 2 All SA 335 (A) • Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton 2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA) • Van der Spuy v Minister of Correctional Services 2004 (2) SA 463 (SE)
1. GENERAL
1. causal link between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s damage is requirement for delict
2. person only liable for damage caused by him
3. causal link? - question of fact which must be answered in light of available evidence of each case
4. many theories of causation have been developed to determine causal link ( Boberg: “morass of controversy that surrounds this element of liability”
5. 2 questions: ← whether any factual relationship exists between defendant’s conduct and damages sustained by plaintiff ( so-called factual causation
← whether defendant should be held legally responsible for the damages factually caused by his conduct ( so-called legal causation
( see Minister of Police v Skosana 34 - 35
2. FACTUAL CAUSATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
6. relates to question whether factual link exists between conduct and damage ( factual causation involves the question whether the damage was the result of the defendant’s conduct “in accordance with ‘science’ or ‘objective’ notions of physical sequence” (Fleming: The Law of Torts 179)
7. how must this factual causal link be determined? ( most cases ( not difficult to decide whether causal link exists ( only difficult to formulate scientifically acceptable theory for factual causation ( most writers and Appellate Division are in favour of