Your text here 1
LAW OF DAMGES – LPL4802
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT: 895518
Student Number:
50938363
, 23
Question 1: General principles of the Law of Damages
1.1. Damage:
- This is the diminution of the utility or quality of a patrimonial or personality
interest, as a result of a damage causing event.
Damages:
- These are the monetary equivalent of damage awarded to a person with the
object of eliminating past and future damage.
In conclusion one can summarize the difference between “damage” and “damages” as
the causal link to the chain of events and the liability arising from such an act in
monetary value to the advantage of the injured party.
1.2. There are two remedies available for damage caused by Animals, and those are
namely:
a) Actio de pauperie
b) Actio de Pastu
a) Actio de pauperie
- The prejudiced person may claim damages from the owner of a domestic
animal which has caused damage.
- Fault on the part of the owner is not a requirement for liability
- The defendant must be the owner
- “By our law, therefore, the owner of a dog that attacks a person who was
lawfully at the place where he was injured, and who neither provoked the
attack nor by his negligence contributed to his own injury, is liable, as owner,
to make good the resulting damage” ( per Innes CJ in O’Callaghan v Chaplin
1927 AD 310 at 329)
, 23
b) Actio de Pastu
- Damages are claimed from the owner of an animal which caused loss by
eating plants
- The defendant must be the owner of the animal when the damage is caused
- The animal must cause damage by eating plants
- Fault on the part of the prejudiced party constitutes complete defenses
against the actio de pastu. Culpable conduct on the part of an outsider does
not exclude the actio de pastu
From the facts provided above we can see that the similarities of the remedies available
for damages caused by animals needs to be directed to the owner of such an animal,
this means the defendant to the action being instituted in Actio de pauperie and actio de
Pastu needs to be the owner of the animal that caused the damage.
The difference from the given facts is that the first remedy being actio de pauperie is
mainly for domestic animals that have caused damage to a certain property of the
plaintiff and fault on the part of the owner of the animal is not a requirement for the
litigation process, therefore this remedy could be considered where an animal injuries a
person by biting them. The second remedy being actio de pastu does require there to
be fault on the part of the owner for the defense to be complete and the damage may
arise from the animal eating plants from the plaintiff’s “sacred” garden or anything of
value to the plaintiff.
1.3.
a) A Contingency is a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot
be predicted with certainty.
- Contingencies logically relate to hypothetical causation, since it is involved
with other hypothetical causes arising from the same damage.
- The concept of Contingency involves the assessment of prospective loss or a
part of loss or a factor which may influence the extent of loss.
LAW OF DAMGES – LPL4802
PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT: 895518
Student Number:
50938363
, 23
Question 1: General principles of the Law of Damages
1.1. Damage:
- This is the diminution of the utility or quality of a patrimonial or personality
interest, as a result of a damage causing event.
Damages:
- These are the monetary equivalent of damage awarded to a person with the
object of eliminating past and future damage.
In conclusion one can summarize the difference between “damage” and “damages” as
the causal link to the chain of events and the liability arising from such an act in
monetary value to the advantage of the injured party.
1.2. There are two remedies available for damage caused by Animals, and those are
namely:
a) Actio de pauperie
b) Actio de Pastu
a) Actio de pauperie
- The prejudiced person may claim damages from the owner of a domestic
animal which has caused damage.
- Fault on the part of the owner is not a requirement for liability
- The defendant must be the owner
- “By our law, therefore, the owner of a dog that attacks a person who was
lawfully at the place where he was injured, and who neither provoked the
attack nor by his negligence contributed to his own injury, is liable, as owner,
to make good the resulting damage” ( per Innes CJ in O’Callaghan v Chaplin
1927 AD 310 at 329)
, 23
b) Actio de Pastu
- Damages are claimed from the owner of an animal which caused loss by
eating plants
- The defendant must be the owner of the animal when the damage is caused
- The animal must cause damage by eating plants
- Fault on the part of the prejudiced party constitutes complete defenses
against the actio de pastu. Culpable conduct on the part of an outsider does
not exclude the actio de pastu
From the facts provided above we can see that the similarities of the remedies available
for damages caused by animals needs to be directed to the owner of such an animal,
this means the defendant to the action being instituted in Actio de pauperie and actio de
Pastu needs to be the owner of the animal that caused the damage.
The difference from the given facts is that the first remedy being actio de pauperie is
mainly for domestic animals that have caused damage to a certain property of the
plaintiff and fault on the part of the owner of the animal is not a requirement for the
litigation process, therefore this remedy could be considered where an animal injuries a
person by biting them. The second remedy being actio de pastu does require there to
be fault on the part of the owner for the defense to be complete and the damage may
arise from the animal eating plants from the plaintiff’s “sacred” garden or anything of
value to the plaintiff.
1.3.
a) A Contingency is a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot
be predicted with certainty.
- Contingencies logically relate to hypothetical causation, since it is involved
with other hypothetical causes arising from the same damage.
- The concept of Contingency involves the assessment of prospective loss or a
part of loss or a factor which may influence the extent of loss.
