Lawmaxxer

South Africa · 3rd Year · Law of Delict

Wrongfulness, Causation & Defamation

More delict cases.

1/8

Space flip · ← → navigate · S save

Show all 8 questions and answers in this book

  1. 1.Minister van Polisie v Ewels (1975) — held?

    An omission is wrongful when the legal convictions of the community (boni mores) require positive action; police were liable for failing to help an assaulted man.

    1975 (3) SA 590 (A)

  2. 2.Lillicrap, Wassenaar and Partners v Pilkington Brothers (1985) — held?

    No delictual claim for pure economic loss arising from negligent breach of a professional contract; the claim lay in contract.

    1985 (1) SA 475 (A)

  3. 3.Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (2001) — held?

    Courts must develop the common law of delict in line with the Bill of Rights; the case was sent back to consider police and prosecutors' duties.

    2001 (4) SA 938 (CC)

  4. 4.K v Minister of Safety and Security (2005) — held?

    The State was vicariously liable for rape committed by on-duty police officers, under a constitutionally developed test.

    2005 (6) SA 419 (CC)

  5. 5.Lee v Minister for Correctional Services (2012) — held?

    Factual causation was proved flexibly: negligent prison conditions caused the prisoner's TB even though the exact source could not be identified.

    2013 (2) SA 144 (CC)

  6. 6.National Media v Bogoshi (1998) — held?

    The media are not strictly liable for defamation; publication of false defamatory statements may be lawful if reasonable.

    1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)

  7. 7.Khumalo v Holomisa (2002) — held?

    The common law of defamation, as developed in Bogoshi, is consistent with the Constitution.

    2002 (5) SA 401 (CC)

  8. 8.Le Roux v Dey (2011) — held?

    Schoolboys who circulated a doctored image of their deputy principal defamed him and had to pay damages and apologise.

    2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)