PVL3703
Assignment 1
Semester 1
Due March 2026
, Element of Conduct
Legal principle
In South African delict, conduct is the first essential element that must be established
before liability can arise. Conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. It may
take the form of a positive act (commission) or a failure to act where there is a legal
duty to do so (omission) (Neethling, Potgieter & Visser, 2019).
An omission will only amount to conduct for purposes of delictual liability if the
defendant had a legal duty to act positively and failed to do so. The test for such a
duty is whether, according to the legal convictions of the community (boni mores),
the defendant ought to have acted to prevent harm (Minister of Police v Ewels 1975 (3)
SA 590 (A)).
Application to the facts
In the present scenario, Lalita’s conduct consists not of a positive act, but of an
omission. She noticed that the kettle plug was loose and sparking, which clearly
indicated a potential danger. Despite this knowledge, she chose to leave the kitchen
without taking any steps to prevent harm. More importantly, she failed to warn Amir,
whom she saw entering the kitchen moments later.
This omission must be assessed to determine whether it qualifies as legally relevant
conduct.
Lalita was the person who created or at least controlled the dangerous situation by
switching on the kettle and observing the sparking plug. In South African law, a person
who creates a potentially dangerous situation may be under a legal duty to prevent
harm arising from it (Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 (1) SA 389
(SCA)).
Furthermore, Lalita had actual knowledge of the risk. This distinguishes her omission
from a situation where harm occurs unexpectedly. She foresaw the danger posed by the
Assignment 1
Semester 1
Due March 2026
, Element of Conduct
Legal principle
In South African delict, conduct is the first essential element that must be established
before liability can arise. Conduct refers to a voluntary human act or omission. It may
take the form of a positive act (commission) or a failure to act where there is a legal
duty to do so (omission) (Neethling, Potgieter & Visser, 2019).
An omission will only amount to conduct for purposes of delictual liability if the
defendant had a legal duty to act positively and failed to do so. The test for such a
duty is whether, according to the legal convictions of the community (boni mores),
the defendant ought to have acted to prevent harm (Minister of Police v Ewels 1975 (3)
SA 590 (A)).
Application to the facts
In the present scenario, Lalita’s conduct consists not of a positive act, but of an
omission. She noticed that the kettle plug was loose and sparking, which clearly
indicated a potential danger. Despite this knowledge, she chose to leave the kitchen
without taking any steps to prevent harm. More importantly, she failed to warn Amir,
whom she saw entering the kitchen moments later.
This omission must be assessed to determine whether it qualifies as legally relevant
conduct.
Lalita was the person who created or at least controlled the dangerous situation by
switching on the kettle and observing the sparking plug. In South African law, a person
who creates a potentially dangerous situation may be under a legal duty to prevent
harm arising from it (Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 (1) SA 389
(SCA)).
Furthermore, Lalita had actual knowledge of the risk. This distinguishes her omission
from a situation where harm occurs unexpectedly. She foresaw the danger posed by the
