Fourway Haulage SA v SA National Roads Agency

Last updated

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd [1] is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC (with JA du Plessis) appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC (with I. Ellis) for the respondent.

Contents

The case is especially significant for the law of delict, and the question of wrongfulness in cases of pure economic loss. The court held that the causation of pure economic loss is not prima facie wrongful. Wrongfulness is a function of public and legal policy considerations. The court went on to examine and explain the policy considerations determining liability.

Facts

Following a motor accident, a toll road had to be closed for 24 hours to facilitate the clean-up of spilt asbestos, which caused the toll company to lose revenue for the duration of the clean-up. The toll company instituted action in the High Court, in which it claimed its loss in toll revenue from the haulier which operated the asbestos truck. After a separation of issues, the High Court determined that the haulier was liable in damages to the toll company for its loss. In arriving at that conclusion, the court found

  1. that the loss was not a pure economic loss;
  2. that the question of a legal duty therefore did not arise; and
  3. that the loss was not too remote for it to be considered to have been caused (legally) by the negligent driving of the haulier's employee.

The haulier appealed against those findings, and the decision of the High Court, to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Judgment

The court held that "pure economic loss" connoted loss that did not arise directly from damage to the plaintiff's person or property, but which arose, rather, in consequence of the negligent act itself, such as loss of profit, additional expenses or diminution in the value of property. [2] Thus understood, the respondent's claim fell squarely within the ambit of "pure economic loss." [3]

The court held further that the principles applicable to the element of wrongfulness were trite. They proceeded from the premise that negligent conduct which manifested itself in the form of a positive act, causing physical damage to the property or person of another, was prima facie wrongful. In contrast, negligent causation of pure economic loss was not regarded as prima facie wrongful. Its wrongfulness depended on the existence of a legal duty. The imposition of that legal duty was a matter for judicial determination, involving criteria of public or legal policy consistent with constitutional norms. In the result, conduct causing pure economic loss would only be regarded as wrongful and therefore actionable if public or legal policy considerations required that such conduct, if negligent, should attract legal liability for the resulting damages. [4]

In a case like the present, where the claim for pure economic loss fell outside the ambit of any recognised category of liability, the first step was to identify the considerations of policy that were of relevance. [5] The first policy consideration was the avoidance of imposing liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. [6] Following this consideration was the question of whether the imposition of liability would bring in its train a multiplicity of actions. The court would more readily impose liability where, as in the present case, the loss claimed was suffered by a single plaintiff, and was finite in extent, than where it would open the door to a multiplicity of actions. [7]

Also a consideration was whether or not the plaintiff had been in a position to protect himself against the risk by contractual means. The court was more likely to impose liability where the plaintiff was "vulnerable to risk" because he was unable to protect himself against the risk of the particular loss by other means. In the present case, the respondent was "vulnerable" to the risk of the loss that eventuated, because it could not readily protect itself against that risk by concluding a contract with every user of the toll road. [8]

A further policy consideration was whether or not the imposition of liability would place an additional, unwarranted burden on the defendant. In the present case, where the appellant's driver was already under an obligation towards other users of the road to drive with reasonable care, to hold him—and his employer—liable for economic loss resulting from his negligent driving would not foist any additional burden upon him at all. [9]

The court held that, on each of those policy considerations, the appellant ought to be held liable; in other words, the negligence of the appellant's employee was wrongful. [10]

The court held further that the test for determining remoteness of damage (under the rubric of legal causation) was a flexible one. That meant that the existing criteria of foreseeability, directness, etcetera, should not be applied dogmatically, but in a flexible manner, so as to avoid a result which was so unfair or unjust that it was regarded as untenable. [11] Each of the various criteria led to the conclusion that the loss suffered by the respondent was not too remote; furthermore, the conclusion that the appellant should be held liable was not untenable. [12] The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Delict is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of wrongful conduct.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delict (Scots law)</span> Actionable civil wrongs in Scots law

Delict in Scots law is the area of law concerned with those civil wrongs which are actionable before the Scottish courts. The Scots use of the term 'delict' is consistent with the jurisdiction's connection with Civilian jurisprudence; Scots private law has a 'mixed' character, blending together elements borrowed from Civil law and Common law, as well as indigenous Scottish developments. The term tort law, or 'law of torts', is used in Anglo-American jurisdictions to describe the area of law in those systems. Unlike in a system of torts, the Scots law of delict operates on broad principles of liability for wrongdoing: 'there is no such thing as an exhaustive list of named delicts in the law of Scotland. If the conduct complained of appears to be wrongful, the law of Scotland will afford a remedy even if there has not been any previous instance of a remedy being given in similar circumstances'. While some terms such as assault and defamation are used in systems of tort law, their technical meanings differ in Scottish delict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on privity of contract.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eggshell skull</span> Legal principle

The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with 'the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered'. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict 'in general terms [...] as a civil wrong', and more narrowly as 'wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person'. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict, but with implications also for criminal law. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 21 August 2003, with judgment handed down on 26 September.

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels ACJ, Trollip JA, Hofmeyr JA, Miller JA and Trengove AJA on 15 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 21 March.

Minister of Police v Skosana is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 19 March 1976, with judgment handed down on 27 September. The judges were Wessels JA, Jansen JA, Corbett JA, Kotzé JA and Viljoen AJA.

International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.

Smit v Abrahams is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges.

Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Africa Bpk is an important case in South African law of delict, in particular in the area of negligent misstatements. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 5, 1979, with judgment handed down on May 25, 1979.

Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

<i>Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc , 2017 SCC 63 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the duty of care that auditors have toward their clients during the course of a professional engagement.

References

Case law

Notes

  1. ↑ 2009 (2) SA 150 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Para 10.
  3. ↑ Para 11.
  4. ↑ Para 12.
  5. ↑ Para 22.
  6. ↑ Para 23.
  7. ↑ Para 24.
  8. ↑ Para 25.
  9. ↑ Para 26.
  10. ↑ Paras 28–29.
  11. ↑ Paras 33–34.
  12. ↑ Para 35.
  13. ↑ Para 36.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.