PVL3703_FINAL_EXAM_PACK_2020.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Q: PAPER(S) OCT/NOV 2019 MAY/JUNE 2019 OCT/NOV 2018 MAY/JUNE 2018 OCT/NOV 2017 MAY/JUNE 2017 OCT/NOV 2016 PVL3703 –LAW OF DELICT 2019 OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1. 2 2. 3 2 | P a g e 3. 2 4. 2.. 5. 2 6. 4 7. 4 8. 3 9. 3 10. 4 11. 1 12. 3 13. 1 14. 3 15. 4 16. 3 17. 2 18. 4 19. 2 20. 1 QUESTION 1 THIS QUESTION DEALS WITH AN ACT/CONDUCT: Conduct 3 | P a g e Is a voluntary human act or omission Elements 1. Human: where an animal is used as an instrument a human act is still present. A juristic person can act through its agents (company) and be held delictually liable for its actions. 2. Voluntary conduct: the act must have been performed voluntarily – the wrongdoer must have had control over his muscular movements (i.e. if it is susceptible to control the will of the person involved). 3. Commission or Ommission Defence of Automatism: The voluntary conduct on the part of the defendant is a requirement for delictual liability. The defendant could argue that the conduct complained of doesn’t satisfy the requirements of voluntariness. This is where someone acted mechanically = sleep, unconscious, fainting fit, absolute force, epileptic fit, serious intoxication, black out. If these are present a person is incapable of controlling his bodily movement = purely mechanical action and that person raises the defence of automatism. In the Mkize case: X stabbed and killed Y with a knife while X was having an epileptic fit, he was acquitted of murder. Antecedent liability: The defendant may not successfully rely on the defence of automatism where he was negligent with regard to his automatic conduct. This is where the reasonable man would have foreseen the possibility of causing harm while in a state of automatism.