⋆ [Grad] ⋆
]]
PVL3703: Law of Delict
Comprehensive Exam Revision — May/June 2025 & May/June 2023
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
[Book] Private Law – University of South Africa [Book]
[Book]Open Exam Revision Guide
PVL3703
Module Code:
Law of Delict
Module Name:
May/June 2025 2024 & 2023
Papers Covered:
Department of Private Law, UNISA
Department:
100 marks per paper
Total Marks:
Study each question carefully. Apply the five elements of delict systematically: con-
duct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and damage.
[Grad] Exam Revision Notes | PVL3703 | 2023 & 2025
,PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
PART A: MAY/JUNE 2025 EXAMINATION
University Examinations — 24 May 2025 — 100 Marks — 4 Hours
First examiner: Prof R Ahmed, Prof JC Knobel, Prof M Mokotong
Second examiner: Prof CJ Pretorius External Examiner: Prof B Wessels
[!] Key Concept
Structure of the 2025 Paper: Five (5) questions, 100 marks total. The paper con-
tains case-study scenarios requiring application of the elements of delict. Closed-book
examination.
Page 2 of 33 [Grad]
,PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
Question 1 (2025) [Approx. 20 marks]
1.1 [15 marks]
Question: Lethabo suffers from epileptic fits. His doctor has prescribed him medication
to control the onset of the epileptic fits. On one morning, while Lethabo is driving a fork-
lift in the warehouse where he works, he suffers an epileptic fit. He loses control of the
forklift and drives it into a shelf packed with goods. Several shelves collapse, injuring two
workers. Write a legal opinion on whether Lethabo’s behaviour amounted to conduct for
the purposes of delictual liability. Would your answer differ if Lethabo had failed to take
his prescribed medication that morning? Discuss in detail with reference to authority.
(15)
Answer: Definition of Conduct
Conduct is defined as a voluntary human act or omission. Voluntariness requires that
the person must be able to control their bodily movements by means of their will.
Where a person’s bodily movements are not subject to the will, those movements do
not constitute conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
Automatism
When a person acts without the ability to control their actions through their will —
such as during an epileptic fit, blackout, reflex movement, sleep, hypnosis, or a heart
attack — that person is said to act in a state of automatism. Automatism renders the
act involuntary and therefore not “conduct” in the delictual sense.
In the leading case of Molefe v Mahaeng the courts confirmed that automatism is
a complete defence to a delictual claim because no conduct can be established. The
burden of proof is on the defendant to raise automatism as a defence; once raised, the
plaintiff must disprove it.
Application to Lethabo (Part 1 — without medication failure)
Lethabo suffered an epileptic fit while operating the forklift. The fit caused an involun-
tary loss of control over his bodily movements. This falls squarely within the category
of automatism. Since Lethabo had no voluntary control at the moment of the incident,
his movements during the fit do not constitute conduct for delictual purposes. Therefore,
the first requirement for delictual liability — conduct — is not satisfied, and Lethabo will
not be delictually liable.
Application to Lethabo (Part 2 — medication failure)
Page 3 of 33 [Grad]
, PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
The answer would differ significantly. Where a person negligently or intentionally
places themselves in a state of automatism, their earlier voluntary act (the failure to
take medication) may establish conduct sufficient for liability. This principle is known as
actio libera in causa (an act which is free in its cause).
Lethabo knew of his condition and was prescribed medication to prevent fits. By failing
to take that medication, he voluntarily created the risk of suffering a fit. This prior vol-
untary omission is itself conduct. The courts will ask: did this prior voluntary act (or
omission) cause the eventual harm? If so, the required element of conduct is present.
[*] Exam Tip
In the 2025 paper, examiners consistently test prior voluntary conduct when
automatism is involved. The key phrase to include is: “Lethabo’s earlier volun-
tary omission to take his medication constitutes conduct, and the element of
automatism does not exclude delictual liability where the automatism itself was
negligently or intentionally induced.”
Conclusion
Without the medication failure, there is no conduct. With the medication failure,
Lethabo’s prior voluntary omission constitutes conduct, and his defence of automa-
tism will fail. The remaining elements of delict (wrongfulness, fault, causation, damage)
would still need to be established.
1.2 [5 marks]
Question: Define “omission” as a form of conduct in delict and explain when an omis-
sion will be regarded as wrongful. (5)
Answer: Omission as Conduct
An omission is a failure to act — a negative form of conduct where a person does not
perform a positive act when they had the ability to do so. Unlike positive acts, liability
for omissions is more restrictive.
When is an Omission Wrongful?
An omission is generally not prima facie wrongful. It becomes wrongful only where there
is a legal duty to act. A legal duty to act may arise from the following:
• Statute: A law imposes a duty to act (e.g., a duty to report).
Page 4 of 33 [Grad]
]]
PVL3703: Law of Delict
Comprehensive Exam Revision — May/June 2025 & May/June 2023
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
[Book] Private Law – University of South Africa [Book]
[Book]Open Exam Revision Guide
PVL3703
Module Code:
Law of Delict
Module Name:
May/June 2025 2024 & 2023
Papers Covered:
Department of Private Law, UNISA
Department:
100 marks per paper
Total Marks:
Study each question carefully. Apply the five elements of delict systematically: con-
duct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and damage.
[Grad] Exam Revision Notes | PVL3703 | 2023 & 2025
,PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
PART A: MAY/JUNE 2025 EXAMINATION
University Examinations — 24 May 2025 — 100 Marks — 4 Hours
First examiner: Prof R Ahmed, Prof JC Knobel, Prof M Mokotong
Second examiner: Prof CJ Pretorius External Examiner: Prof B Wessels
[!] Key Concept
Structure of the 2025 Paper: Five (5) questions, 100 marks total. The paper con-
tains case-study scenarios requiring application of the elements of delict. Closed-book
examination.
Page 2 of 33 [Grad]
,PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
Question 1 (2025) [Approx. 20 marks]
1.1 [15 marks]
Question: Lethabo suffers from epileptic fits. His doctor has prescribed him medication
to control the onset of the epileptic fits. On one morning, while Lethabo is driving a fork-
lift in the warehouse where he works, he suffers an epileptic fit. He loses control of the
forklift and drives it into a shelf packed with goods. Several shelves collapse, injuring two
workers. Write a legal opinion on whether Lethabo’s behaviour amounted to conduct for
the purposes of delictual liability. Would your answer differ if Lethabo had failed to take
his prescribed medication that morning? Discuss in detail with reference to authority.
(15)
Answer: Definition of Conduct
Conduct is defined as a voluntary human act or omission. Voluntariness requires that
the person must be able to control their bodily movements by means of their will.
Where a person’s bodily movements are not subject to the will, those movements do
not constitute conduct for the purposes of delictual liability.
Automatism
When a person acts without the ability to control their actions through their will —
such as during an epileptic fit, blackout, reflex movement, sleep, hypnosis, or a heart
attack — that person is said to act in a state of automatism. Automatism renders the
act involuntary and therefore not “conduct” in the delictual sense.
In the leading case of Molefe v Mahaeng the courts confirmed that automatism is
a complete defence to a delictual claim because no conduct can be established. The
burden of proof is on the defendant to raise automatism as a defence; once raised, the
plaintiff must disprove it.
Application to Lethabo (Part 1 — without medication failure)
Lethabo suffered an epileptic fit while operating the forklift. The fit caused an involun-
tary loss of control over his bodily movements. This falls squarely within the category
of automatism. Since Lethabo had no voluntary control at the moment of the incident,
his movements during the fit do not constitute conduct for delictual purposes. Therefore,
the first requirement for delictual liability — conduct — is not satisfied, and Lethabo will
not be delictually liable.
Application to Lethabo (Part 2 — medication failure)
Page 3 of 33 [Grad]
, PVL3703 | Exam Revision Law of Delict
The answer would differ significantly. Where a person negligently or intentionally
places themselves in a state of automatism, their earlier voluntary act (the failure to
take medication) may establish conduct sufficient for liability. This principle is known as
actio libera in causa (an act which is free in its cause).
Lethabo knew of his condition and was prescribed medication to prevent fits. By failing
to take that medication, he voluntarily created the risk of suffering a fit. This prior vol-
untary omission is itself conduct. The courts will ask: did this prior voluntary act (or
omission) cause the eventual harm? If so, the required element of conduct is present.
[*] Exam Tip
In the 2025 paper, examiners consistently test prior voluntary conduct when
automatism is involved. The key phrase to include is: “Lethabo’s earlier volun-
tary omission to take his medication constitutes conduct, and the element of
automatism does not exclude delictual liability where the automatism itself was
negligently or intentionally induced.”
Conclusion
Without the medication failure, there is no conduct. With the medication failure,
Lethabo’s prior voluntary omission constitutes conduct, and his defence of automa-
tism will fail. The remaining elements of delict (wrongfulness, fault, causation, damage)
would still need to be established.
1.2 [5 marks]
Question: Define “omission” as a form of conduct in delict and explain when an omis-
sion will be regarded as wrongful. (5)
Answer: Omission as Conduct
An omission is a failure to act — a negative form of conduct where a person does not
perform a positive act when they had the ability to do so. Unlike positive acts, liability
for omissions is more restrictive.
When is an Omission Wrongful?
An omission is generally not prima facie wrongful. It becomes wrongful only where there
is a legal duty to act. A legal duty to act may arise from the following:
• Statute: A law imposes a duty to act (e.g., a duty to report).
Page 4 of 33 [Grad]
