PVL3703 FINAL EXAM PACK 2021/2023
EXAMINATION PACK
LAW OF DELICT
PVL3703
SOLUTIONS FOR PAST EXAM PAPERS
PVL3703 www.tutorialscampus.co.za +27 (71) 224 5255
1|Page
, 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|Page
, 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|Page
, 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.
4|Page
EXAMINATION PACK
LAW OF DELICT
PVL3703
SOLUTIONS FOR PAST EXAM PAPERS
PVL3703 www.tutorialscampus.co.za +27 (71) 224 5255
1|Page
, 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|Page
, 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|Page
, 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.
4|Page
