Dog Attack Legal Defenses

Which one of the following is a requirement for a successful reliance on “private defence”? a. There must be fault on the part of the aggressor. b. The attack must be directed at the defender. c. The attack must be wrongful. d. Factual and legal causation must be present.

Which one of the following is incorrect in respect of conduct? a. An animal cannot act for purposes of the law of delict. b. A public school can act for the purpose of the law of delict. c. Behaviour must be willed to qualify as a voluntary act. d. Conduct may consist of a commission or an omission.

Which one of the following factors is NOT indicative of a legal duty to prevent harm in the case of an omission? a. A particular office. b. Control of a dangerous object. c. Rules of law. d. Necessity.

In which one of the following cases did the defence of _volenti non fit iniuria_ succeed? a. _Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd v Van der Vyver_ * * SA * (A). b. _Lampert v Hefer_ * * SA * (A). c. _Santam Insurance Co Ltd v Vorster_ * * SA * (A). d. _Maartens v Pope_ * * SA * (N).

In which one of the following cases was it first stated that conduct is wrongful if policy considerations demand that the plaintiff be compensated for the loss caused by the defendant’s negligent act or omission? a. _Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA_ * * SA * (SCA). b. _Le Roux v Dey_ * * SA * (CC). c. _Local Transitional Council of Delmas v Boshoff_ * * SA * (SCA). d. _Minister van Polisie v Ewels_ * * SA * (A).

Which one of the following cases dealt with consent in the context of sports injuries? a. _Jones NO v Santam Bpk_ * * SA * (A). b. _Roux v Hattingh _2012 * SA * (SCA). c. _S v Mokgethi_ * * SA * (A). d. _Lee v Minister of Correctional Services _2013 * SA * (CC).

The following case is regarded as authority for the proposition that killing of an innocent person may be justified by necessity: a. _S v Goliath_ * * SA * (A). b. _Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security_ * * SA * (CC). c. _Molefe v Mahaeng_ * * SA * (SCA). d. _National Media Ltd v Bogoshi_ * * SA * (SCA).

On a misty night, Bill must walk through a neighbourhood in which several incidents of armed robbery have recently taken place. Suddenly he sees the dim outline of a person pointing a handgun in his direction. Bill quickly pulls out his own pistol and fires a shot. The person falls to the ground and Bill rushes forward to disarm him. When he gets to the fallen person, he sees that it is Jim who owns the corner shop nearby. It transpires that Jim has not been pointing a firearm, as Bill thought, but was pointing a malfunctioning torch and trying to switch it on. Jim is seriously wounded and needs treatment in hospital. Jim institutes a delictual claim against Bill. Bill raises private defence as a ground of justification. Apply the views of Neethling and Potgieter to this set of facts and select the best option: a. Bill’s prospects of succeeding with his reliance on private defence are good. b. Bill is relying on putative private defence and he may escape liability because of the absence of fault. c. Bill is relying on putative private defence and his conduct will be found to be lawful rather than wrongful. d. Bill will be held delictually liable.

Which one of the following cases contains a clear exposition of the role of a legal duty in delictual liability? a. _S v Goliath_ * * SA * (A). b. _Kruger v Coetzee_ * * SA * (A). c. _First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Duvenhage_ * * SA * (SCA). d. _Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (Women’s Legal Centre Trust, as amicus curiae)_ * * SA * (SCA).

Tumelo, a captain of the South African Police Service, orders Mandla, a sergeant under his command, to shoot and kill Kwena. Tumelo believes that Kwena is about to throw a hand grenade into a shop. Mandla shoots and wounds Kwena. It later transpires that Kwena merely wanted to blow his nose and that Tumelo made a mistake. Kwena institutes a claim against Mandla. Mandla may rely on the following ground of justification:------------------------- a. Statutory authority. b. Execution of an official command. c. Official capacity. d. No ground of justification is applicable, Mandla’s conduct was wrongful.

Which one of the following cases dealt with the doctrine of informed consent? a. _Castell v De Greef_ * * SA * (C). b. _Le Roux v Dey_ * * SA * (CC). c. _Roux v Hattingh_ * * SA * (SCA). d. _Lee v Minister of Correctional Services_ * * SA * (CC).

Which one of the following factors is the plaintiff NOT required to prove according to McKerron, in instances of an alleged breach of a statutory duty? a. That the conduct of the defendant was not expressly prohibited by the statutory provisions. b. The statutory measure provided the plaintiff with a private law remedy. c. That the defendant did in fact transgress the statutory provision. d. That there was a causal link between the transgression of the statutory provision and the harm.

While watching a soccer match, Tom, a staunch supporter of Orlando Pirates, tells Ace, a staunch supporter of Chiefs, that he (Ace) is a wimp for supporting such a useless team. Tom continues to insult Ace. After enduring Tom’s insults for about * minutes, Ace in a blind range, hits Tom in the face, breaking Tom’s nose. Tom institutes a delictual action against Ace. Ace may rely on: a. Necessity. b. No defence is applicable, and Ace’s conduct was wrongful. c. Provocation. d. Private defence.

There is dry grass on Phindile’s farm. Phindile fails to cut the grass. A fire breaks out in the grass and spreads to her neighbour, Quinton’s farm, where it causes some damage. Which one of the following statements is correct regarding wrongfulness?------------------------- a. Phindile’s conduct was not wrongful as she had no control over the spread of the fire. b. In this instance, prior conduct is the only factor which indicates that there was a legal duty to prevent harm. c. Phindile’s control over the fire is not necessarily sufficient to establish a legal duty to prevent harm. d. Quinton’s conduct was wrongful as he did not mitigate his damage by putting the fire out.

The following case deals with the approach that wrongfulness consists in the breach of a legal duty to prevent harm: a. _National Media Ltd v Bogoshi_ * * SA * (SCA). b. _S v Goliath_ * * SA * (A). c. _Molefe v Mahaeng_ * * SA * (SCA). d. _Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security_ * * SA * (CC).

Which one of the following statements is correct regarding prior conduct? a. Where prior conduct is present, the direct application of the reasonableness test will not be necessary. b. The prior conduct requirement was considered essential in _Minister van Polisie v Ewels_ * (*) SA * (A). c. The prior conduct requirement was considered essential in _Minister of Forestry v Quathlamba (Pty) Ltd_ * * SA * (A). d. Prior conduct is a prerequisite for the existence of a legal duty.

David, a police officer, bears a grudge against Tobias. While conducting a police raid after receiving an anonymous tip, David realises that it is Tobias’ house. Upon finding Tobias, who was trying to flee, David shoots and injures Tobias. Tobias institutes a delictual claim against David for the injuries he sustained. David may rely on the following defence: a. Execution of an official command. b. No ground of justification is applicable; David’s conduct is wrongful. c. Statutory authority. d. Official capacity.