PVL3703 - LAW OF DELICT EXAM PACK.

2020-06-ASS Question 1 1. Which one of the following conditions may amount to automatism? 1. Provocation. 2. Self-defence. 3. Black-out. 4. Necessity. Question 4 Musa is away on holiday. Frank, his neighbour, is keeping a watchful eye on his house for him and undertook to take care of Musa’s cat. Frank notices that the house is on fire and realises that Musa’s cat is trapped in the burning house. Frank breaks down the front door of Musa’s house in order to save the cat. If Musa wants to institute a delictual action against Frank for breaking down his front door, Frank may rely on the following ground of justification: 1. statutory authority. 2. necessity. 3. provocation. 4. private defence. The correct alternative is [2]. In this scenario, the defences of private defence, provocation and statutory authority are not applicable. Necessity exists when the defendant is placed in such a position that he or she is able to protect an interest (his or her own legally recognisable interest or that of someone else) only by reasonably violating the interests of another person. Frank acted out of necessity in protecting the life of the cat. All the requirements for necessity are present. See Neethling, Potgieter and Visser Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict Chapter 3 para 7.3; Study Guide, study unit 10. Question 5 Dick is so offended by William’s speech at a political rally, that he throws an apple at William. William falls off the podium and sustains a broken arm as well as a few broken ribs. He is admitted to hospital. While he is being treated there, a nurse leaves the windows of the ward open and William contracts pneumonia. Which one of the following is incorrect? 1. Dick acted wrongfully. 2. Dick had fault. 3. There is a factual causal link between Dick’s conduct and William’s pneumonia. PVL3703 - LAW OF DELICT EXAM PACK. 4. There is a legal causal link between Dick’s conduct and William’s pneumonia. The correct alternative is [4]. The emphasis here was on the incorrect statement. Dick did act wrongfully when he threw the apple and he had fault (intention) when he directed the apple at William. Dicks conduct has a factual causal link to William’s broken arm, ribs and pneumonia. To determine factual causation, the conditio sine qua non theory (also known as the ‘but for’ test) is applied. With regard to William contracting pneumonia, Dick’s intentional wrongful conduct was the factual cause but not the legal cause. The nurse’s conduct (leaving the window open) may be considered a novus actus interveniens. Therefore, alternative 4 is the incorrect statement and the correct alternative to this question. See Neethling, Potgieter and Visser Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict Chapter 5 para 2-3; Study Guide, study unit 21-22. Question 7 The principle dictating that all past and prospective loss must be claimed together stemming from a single cause of action, is known as: 1. the sum-formula approach. 2. the ‘once and for all’ rule. 3. compensating advantages. 4. the concrete approach to damage. The correct alternative is [2]. The “once and for all” rule expresses that in all claims for compensation and satisfaction arising out of a delict, the plaintiff must claim damages for all damage already sustained and all future damages insofar as the claims are based on a single cause of action. See Neethling, Potgieter and Visser Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict Chapter 6 para 4.7; Study Guide, study unit 24. Question 8 Which is the odd one out? 1. The adequate causation theory. 2. Normative foreseeability. 3. Direct consequences. 4. The sum-formula approach. The correct alternative is [4]. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 relate to establishing legal causation while alternative 4 is an approach used in determining the element of harm/loss/damage. See in general Study Guide, study units 22-24. 2019-10-ASS Question 1 John takes David’s big and rather aggressive dog for a walk. John incites the dog to attack Garth. The dog charges at Garth, but Garth shoots the dog and kills it. If David institutes a delictual action against Garth, on what ground of justification may Garth rely? 1. Necessity. 2. Private defence. 3. Provocation. 4. None of the above. Question 5 Which is the odd one out? 1. The adequate causation theory. 2. The sum-formula approach. 3. Direct consequences. 4. Normative foreseeability. 2019-06-ASS Question 1 1. Which one of the following conditions may amount to automatism? 1. Provocation. 2. Self-defence. 3. Necessity. 4. Hypnosis. The correct alternative is [4]. Hypnosis is one of the recognised conditions that may cause a person to act involuntarily. Where a person acts involuntarily, the defence of automatism may apply. Automatism cancels the element of conduct. See Neethling, Potgieter and Visser Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict Chapter 2 para 3; Study Guide, study unit 3. The other alternatives are defences which cancel the element of wrongfulness. Question 2 Choose the correct statement. In Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) the Constitutional Court: 1. recognised a claim for Constitutional damages. 2. noted that the law of delict admirably reflected the spirit, purport and object of the Bill of Rights. 3. declared that the courts of lower instance had erred by applying a pre-constitutional concept of the boni mores. 4. recognised the concept of a Constitutional delict.