CAPE TOWN MUNICIPALITY V BAKKERUD
Facts of the Case
1) P, an elderly lady, stepped into a hole in the pavement, stumbled and fell, and was injured.
2) P had been aware of the hole – had been there for 6 months, but probably absent-minded at the time.
3) Relevant legislation empowered but did not oblige municipality to construct and repair streets.
ADMINSTRATEUR, TRANSVAAL V VAN DER MERWE
FACTS
1) P claimed damages from D for damage as a result of veld fires.
2) P alleged that D had acted wrongfully in
failing to make firebreaks
3) Fire had started in long dry grass in road
reserve under D’s control
ADMINSTRATEUR, TRANSVAAL V VAN DER MERWE
Courts held:
1) Fact that D had control over public roads in terms of Ordinance did not translate into a legal duty – one of the factors to be
considered
2) Policy of D was to only made firebreaks along public, numbered roads, when requested by landowners – no evidence that this policy was unreasonable
CARMICHELE V MINISTER OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY
FACTS
1) P was viciously assaulted by person awaiting trial but out on bail.
2) P argued there was a duty on the investigating officer and state prosecutors to ensure attacker did not get bail and stayed in captivity
Special relationship between state officials and P
VAN EEDEN V MINSTER OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY
FACTS
1) P was attacked, indecently assaulted, raped and robbed by suspect who had escaped from police custody.
2) Police had left security gate open.
VAN EEDEN V MINSTER OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY
RULING:
1) Fundamental right to bodily integrity – duty of state to protect this, particularly iro women
2) Statutory duty of police to prevent crime
3) Constitutional accountability of state
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND
SECURITY V VAN DUIVENBODEN
1) X was in possession of licensed firearms
2) Had a history of alcohol abuse and would become aggressive and abuse his family
3) On one such occasion X shot and killed his daughter and wife and wounded a neighbour (Y)
4) Y sued police – they had known that X was unfit to possess firearms and did not remove them
MINISTER VAN POLISIE V EWELS
1) P was assaulted by off duty policeman in police station while other policemen looked on without intervening.
2) P claimed damages from D on basis that policemen (in D’s employ) failed to prevent him from being assaulted and injured in their presence
