1
Q
Gijezen v Verrinder
A
2
Q
Min Safety and Security v Hamilton
A
3
Q
Western Cape,Premier v Faircape Properties
A
4
Q
S v Dhlamini
A
Involuntary Conduct
Act Mechanically
5
Q
S v Erwin
A
Automatism NOT a defence
Impulsiveness and Spontaneous
6
Q
Wessels v
A
Negligent prior conduct
7
Q
Molefe
A
Onus of Proof
8
Q
Coetzee v SA Railways
Jowell
A
1) the court held that a person cannot sue solely for prospective damages
9
Q
Molefe v Mahaeng
A
held that if successfully established, [“sane”]
automatism is a complete defence in the law of delict; conduct must be voluntary in order for a D to be held liable for harm caused by it; courts must scrutinise automatism defences with
the utmost care; the P [in this case] had not managed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the D had acted voluntarily
DLR
flashcards
Decks in class (14)
# Cards
