The Independent Institute of Education 2016
MODULE NAME: MODULE CODE:
LAW OF DELICT LADE6212
ASSESSMENT TYPE: TEST (PAPER ONLY)
TOTAL MARK ALLOCATION: 60 MARKS
TOTAL HOURS: 1 HOUR (+5 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. NO dictionaries allowed.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2016
Page 1 of 5
The Independent Institute of Education 2016
Question 1 (Marks:10)
Q.1.1 Name the action that is used to claim for patrimonial damage. (1)
Q.1.2 Name the action that is used to claim for bodily disfigurement related to physical (1)
injury.
Q.1.3 Briefly set out why Joubert in the “Law of Delict” by Neethling, Visser & Potgieter, (2)
thinks it is unnecessary to rely on the nasciturus fiction to grant a delictual action to
a child born with defects resulting from pre-natal injuries?
Q.1.4 Explain the difference between consent to injury and consent to the risk of injury. (4)
Give an example of each.
Q.1.5 Define accountability. (2)
Question 2 (Marks: 20)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS MCQs
(a) Answer the following questions by choosing the most correct statement in each
instance and by writing the corresponding number next to the question number, e.g. 2.1
– 1; 2.2 – 2; 1.3 – 3, etc.
(b) There is ONLY ONE (1) correct answer.
(c) NO marks will be allocated when more than ONE answer is given.
(d) KINDLY NOTE: Where a question contains an assumption the assumption is applicable
to that question only unless the context indicates otherwise.
Q.2.1 Delictual remedies (2)
(1) primarily serve to punish the wrongdoer.
(2) are primarily directed at enforcement.
(3) are compensatory in character.
(4) are aimed at vindicating fundamental rights.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2016
Page 2 of 5
The Independent Institute of Education 2016
Q.2.2 In Universiteit van Pretoria v Tommie Meyer Films 1977 4 SA 376 (T) the court (2)
decided that
(1) the boni mores criterion is influenced by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
(2) the infringement of a subjective right is a criterion for establishing
wrongfulness.
(3) the prior conduct rule determines wrongfulness in the case of an omission.
(4) the test for wrongfulness is an ex ante enquiry.
Q.2.3 In cases of liability for an omission, wrongfulness is usually determined by asking (2)
whether
(1) a subjective right has been infringed.
(2) a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have foreseen and
prevented the harm.
(3) a legal duty has been breached.
(4) the particular harm was reasonably foreseeable.
Q.2.4 In which case did Rumpff CJ state that; “the stage of development had been reached (2)
in our law in which an omission is wrongful not only if it incites moral indignation,
but if the legal convictions of the community demand that it be considered
wrongful”?
(1) S v Goliath 1972 3 SA 1 (A).
(2) Jameson’s Minors v CSAR 1908 TS 575.
(3) Za v Smith and Another 2015 4 SA 574 (SCA).
(4) Minister van Polisie v Ewels 1975 3 SA 590 (A).
Q.2.5 In Schultz v Butt 1986 3 SA 667 (A) Nicholas AJA accepted that the legal convictions (2)
of the community must be seen by the judge as
(1) his or her personal view of what is wrongful.
(2) the legal convictions of the policy makers of the community.
(3) the moral and religious views of the community.
(4) the ethical views of the community.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2016
Page 3 of 5
The Independent Institute of Education 2016
Q.2.6 Max is taking his dog for a walk. The dog tries to bite a passer-by, Zo. (2)
Zo kicks the dog, breaking the dog’s leg.
Which one (1) of the following defences can Zo raise?
(1) Private defence
(2) Provocation
(3) Necessity
(4) Volenti non fit iniuria
Q.2.7 X punches Y in the face after Y insults him. As a general rule (2)
(1) X can rely on provocation as a complete defence.
(2) X can rely on consent as a complete defence.
(3) X cannot rely on provocation as a complete defence.
(4) such provocation cannot mitigate damages.
Q.2.8 Which of the following statements is CORRECT? (2)
(1) Consent to injury is a partial defence.
(2) Consent must be given by a person with full legal capacity to act.
(3) A pactum de non petendo excludes wrongfulness.
(4) A pactum de non petendo is an agreement not to hold another liable.
Q.2.9 The maxim imperitia culpae adnumeratur means that (2)
(1) rulers cannot be negligent.
(2) mere ignorance constitutes negligence.
(3) a person should not undertake an activity requiring skill if he or she knows
that he or she lacks the knowledge to undertake the activity.
(4) the law cannot expect a person in a sudden emergency to act with the same
judgment as a person not in such circumstances.
Q.2.10 The AD in Union National South British Insurance v Vitoria 1982 1 SA 444 held that (2)
contributory negligence
(1) is measured in relation to the damage-causing event.
(2) is measured in relation to the damage caused.
(3) follows the “all-or-nothing” rule taken from English law.
(4) follows the “last opportunity” rule.
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2016
Page 4 of 5
The Independent Institute of Education 2016
Question 3 (Marks:10)
Briefly explain, with reference to case law, the history and development of the prior conduct rule
in relation to liability for an omission.
Question 4 (Marks:10)
Mina arrives home and notices that the front door of her house has been forced open. Mina takes
her revolver out of her handbag and decides to go inside and confront the burglar. Mina sees
someone in her bedroom, putting her jewellery into his pockets. She shoots and injures the
burglar. It transpires that the burglar was a young boy. He was unarmed.
Discuss whether Mina can raise private defence as a justification ground for the injuries caused to
the burglar. Refer to the relevant requirements for the attack and the defence and relate these to
the facts.
Question 5 (Marks:10)
Mpho, aged 11, goes to play at his friend Sam’s house. Mpho notices a bird nest high in the pecan
nut tree. Mpho can see the beaks of two nestlings (baby birds) and he decides to climb the tree so
that he can see the baby birds up close. A branch on which he is climbing breaks and Mpho falls
and fractures his arm. Mpho’s parents want Sam’s parents to compensate them for Mpho’s
medical expenses. They say that Sam’s parents should have made sure that the boy did not climb
such a tall tree. Sam’s parents say that the accident was not their fault and that Mpho, himself,
was negligent.
Answer the following questions.
Q.5.1 Outline the classic test used for negligence as formulated in Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (5)
2 SA 428 (A).
Q.5.2 Discuss the approach a court will take in establishing whether Mpho was negligent. (5)
Refer to case law.
END OF PAPER
© The Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd 2016
Page 5 of 5
