17; 18; 19 2019
MODULE NAME: MODULE CODE:
LAW OF DELICT LADE6212
ASSESSMENT TYPE: EXAMINATION (PAPER ONLY)
TOTAL MARK ALLOCATION: 120 MARKS
TOTAL HOURS: 2 HOURS (+10 minutes reading time)
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Please adhere to all instructions in the assessment booklet.
2. Independent work is required.
3. Five minutes per hour of the assessment to a maximum of 15 minutes is dedicated to
reading time before the start of the assessment. You may make notes on your question
paper, but not in your answer sheet. Calculators may not be used during reading time.
4. You may not leave the assessment venue during reading time, or during the first hour or
during the last 15 minutes of the assessment.
5. Ensure that your name is on all pieces of paper or books that you will be submitting. Submit
all the pages of this assessment’s question paper as well as your answer script.
6. Answer all the questions on the answer sheets or in answer booklets provided. The phrase
‘END OF PAPER’ will appear after the final set question of this assessment.
7. Remember to work at a steady pace so that you are able to complete the assessment within
the allocated time. Use the mark allocation as a guideline as to how much time to spend on
each section.
Additional instructions:
1. This is a CLOSED BOOK assessment.
2. Answer all questions.
3. Calculators are not allowed.
4. Dictionaries are not allowed.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 1 of 6
17; 18; 19 2019
Question 1 (Marks: 50)
Q.1.1 Explain the generalising approach to the law of delict. (3)
Q.1.2 Name the term used for the defence against the voluntariness of conduct. (1)
Q.1.3 Discuss the concept of the voluntariness of conduct. Illustrate with an example. (6)
Q.1.4 Describe the relationship between the act (conduct), wrongfulness and the (5)
consequence. Illustrate with an example.
Q.1.5 In Ex parte die Min van Justisie: in re v Van Wyk 1967 (1) 488 (A), the court held (3)
that killing in defence of property was justified. Why would this decision now be
re-considered?
Q.1.6 Penelope kills her neighbour’s pet dog because she wrongly thinks the dog has (3)
rabies and will cause her death. The dog was actually foaming at the mouth
because he had eaten a poisonous frog. Explain why Penelope cannot rely on the
defence of necessity.
Q.1.7 Outline the specific requirements for valid consent. (8)
Q.1.8 Define accountability. (4)
Q.1.9 Explain the meaning of imperitia culpae adnumeratur. Illustrate with an example. (5)
Q.1.10 Briefly distinguish between fault and contributory fault. (2)
Q.1.11 Explain the once-and-for-all rule and describe the implications thereof. (6)
Q.1.12 Explain the right of recourse of a joint wrongdoer. (4)
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 2 of 6
17; 18; 19 2019
Question 2 (Marks: 10)
Multiple-choice questions: Select one correct answer for each of the following. In your answer
booklet, write down only the number of the question and next to it, the number of the correct
answer.
Q.2.1 The action which lies for the intentional infringement of personality rights is called: (2)
(1) the action for pain and suffering.
(2) the actio Iniuriarum.
(3) the actio de pauperie.
(4) the amende honorable.
Q.2.2 Which of the following statements is correct? (2)
(1) Delicts are wrongs against public interests.
(2) Most common law crimes are also delicts.
(3) The law of delict serves punitive functions.
(4) The primary purpose of a contractual remedy is compensation.
Q.2.3 Which of the following statements is correct? (2)
(1) The Constitution has no relevance to the South African law of delict.
(2) The aim of constitutional relief is compensation.
(3) The aim of delictual relief is enforcement.
(4) The courts must promote the spirit and objects of the Bill of Rights in
developing the common law of delict.
Q.2.4 The term used to describe the defences against wrongfulness is: (2)
(1) automatism.
(2) actio libera in causa.
(3) grounds of justification.
(4) relative compulsion.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 3 of 6
17; 18; 19 2019
Q.2.5 The term used to describe legally deficient positive conduct is: (2)
(1) actio de pastu.
(2) Automatism.
(3) culpa in faciendo.
(4) pactum de non-petendo.
Question 3 (Marks: 20)
It is JJ’s 11th birthday. His parents have given him a skateboard as a present. JJ is very excited, as
he has longed for a skateboard for years. JJ goes skateboarding in the street. He is unsteady on
the skateboard, and falls off. A driver passing by is busy sending a text message on her cellphone.
The driver crashes into the boy, and breaks his leg.
JJ’s parents bring an action for damages against the driver.
Answer the following questions:
Q.3.1 What is the presumption that applies in respect of JJ’s accountability? Briefly (2)
explain.
Q.3.2 Does the driver have fault in the form of dolus eventualis, or fault in the form of (6)
gross negligence? Substantiate your answer.
Q.3.3 Assume that the maxim res ipsa loquitor applies to the driver. Describe what this (4)
means and what effect it has.
Q.3.4 Assume that the driver raises the contributory negligence of JJ as a defense. (6)
Describe the approach taken by the courts to the negligence of children.
Q.3.5 JJ’s aunt feels sorry for him and transfers R2000 into his bank account. Assume (2)
that the court decides to award damages to JJ. What effect will the gift from JJ’s
aunt have on the award of damages? Substantiate your answer.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 4 of 6
17; 18; 19 2019
Question 4 (Marks: 40)
Mr Xavier owned two firearms. Mr Xavier frequently abused alcohol and, when intoxicated, he
would become aggressive and threatening. On one such occasion, Mr Xavier loaded his firearms
and started shooting at his wife, who fled with their son to a neighbour’s house. Mr Xavier shot
and killed his daughter at home, and then followed his wife and shot and killed her too. Mr Xavier
also shot and injured the neighbour, Mr Nathan, who had been trying to protect the boy.
Mr Nathan brought an action against the police, arguing that the police had negligently failed in
their statutory obligation to remove the firearms from Mr Xavier. The police had prior knowledge
that Mr Xavier was not fit to possess firearms. On two previous occasions the police had been
called to Mr Xavier’s house as he had been abusing his family and threatening to shoot them.
The Firearm’s Control Act 60 of 2000 provides that the police have a duty to deprive an
incompetent person of firearms.
Answer the following questions, providing reasons for your answers:
Q.4.1 Does the police’s failure to remove the firearms from Mr Xavier constitute an (6)
act/conduct? Identify the relevant characteristics of conduct and briefly apply
these to the facts.
Q.4.2 Identify three crystallised factors which may indicate that the conduct of the (9)
police was wrongful. Relate each factor to the set of facts and cite one case as
authority for each factor.
Q.4.3 Suppose that when Mr Xavier came into Mr Nathan’s house, Mr Nathan used a (5)
cricket bat to attack Mr Xavier, knocking the firearm out of his hand, and breaking
his arm. Would Mr Nathan be able to raise the justification ground of private
defence or the justification ground of provocation in a claim brought by Mr X for
his injuries? Give reasons for your answer, explaining why you can rely on the one
defence and why you cannot rely on the other.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 5 of 6
17; 18; 19 2019
Q.4.4 Suppose that wrongfulness is established. Did the police act with negligence? (10)
Apply the law to the facts.
Q.4.5 Name and describe how the test used to establish factual causation will be applied (4)
to these facts.
Q.4.6 Suppose that Mr Nathan suffers from a brittle bone disease, as a result of which (6)
his injuries are far worse than they would have been had he not had the disease.
Do you think that the police must be held liable for the harm resulting from the
weakness? Give reasons for your answer.
END OF PAPER
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2019
Page 6 of 6