Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Principal, agent, liability, independent contractor, employment, negligence, non-delegable duty, care, damages, delict, reasonableness, foreseeability, harm, vicarious liability Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman [ 1 ] [ 2 ] is an important case in the South African law of agency .
The degree of knowledge which the defendant had about the probability and likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff. [10]: p 230–1 Special rules exist for the establishment of duty of care where the plaintiff suffered mental harm, or where the defendant is a public authority. [12]
The resounding test attempts to reconcile the need for a control device, proximity of relationship, with foreseeability of harm. Lord Oliver's speech in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman summarises the test for a duty of care: [19] The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct;
A failure-to-warn claim is a staple of products liability litigation. The basic premise is that a manufacturer or seller failed to warn a consumer about an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm ...
The South African law of delict engages primarily with 'the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered'. [1] JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict 'in general terms [...] as a civil wrong', and more narrowly as 'wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person'. [2]
Second, SATAWU argued that personal injury or property damage is a foreseeable possibility in the case of almost all gatherings. Thus, SATAWU contended that section 11(2) does not provide a viable defence to the organisers of public gatherings, and that those organisers are therefore exposed to extensive liability under the RGA.
"In essence, this money has been stolen from all of us for all these years," said an 84-year-old woman whose late husband's Social Security benefits were slashed. "It's not fair."
It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks ...