claim of damages because he was injured in their presence court said there was

Claim of damages because he was injured in their

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 25 pages.

claim of damages because he was injured in their presence, court said there was a legal duty to intervene. Reasons o Sec 5 of police act - created duty to protect on police, question was if not adhering to statutory obligation – this wasn’t directly delictual liability - may be criminal case . not on its own o Prior conduct was not prerequisite indispensable for legal duty to arise – no general duty to prevent loss.. certain prior conduct, control of a dangerous object, one of many factors but not a prerequisite. Only seen as wrongful when eliciting moral indignation but also bonis mores of community, compensation provided that all the elements of the delict are complied with. But positive conduct will be taken into account. o Different relationships, policeman, citizen, disinterested stranger o Would a member of public be expected to intervene = no, don’t have to sacrifice you own life for someone else. Cape town municipality v Bakkarud Usually concernces a holder. Plaintiff elderly lady fell and was injured, the relevant leg enpowered the municipality but did not obligate them to repair the streets omission – legal issue of wrongfulness.. was there a legal duty to act. If non-compliance then wrongful Reasons – o clear distinction from fault, because faults comes after wrongfulness, is there something wrong with looking at negligence first (usually earier to determine) just remember to that it is not linked to wrongfulness – o Moral indignation doesn’t create legal duty – it is created by legal convictions of the community. Wrongfll also doesn’t automatically translate into liability. English doctrine – worngfull + neglence is the same thing History of municipality case o Didn’t decide that municipalities were u=immune from liability and could never incure a legal duty – most of them acting under empower legislation
Image of page 9
o That didn’t confer absolute or relative immunity – empowering legislation o There must have been a prior positive act – but as seen in ewels case - not really necessary anymore Basis of reasoning o Depending on the facts of each case, like well funded or not? More inclined to assign liability to large, external factors, busy street, vis major (knowledge of them? ). Even though objective reasoning we do use subjective factors – like if someone informed them There was a legal duty o Very deep, busy road, they had knowledge thereofe – the omission was clearly wrongfull , o If they were in a quiet road – or an ill funded municipality then it would’ve been different. Van der Merwe Case - - claim of damages in a result of velt fires No fire bregades – started in loign dry grass and spread, Question – was the defendant omission – failure to make fire breaks,- NO it was not regarded as wrongfull o W before fault – the fact that D had controle over the public rode – the ordinance – statutory provisions don’t translate into legal duty – in terms of bonois mores of community – o one factor to take in. cost and expenses in terms of prevention and
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 25 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes