Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters (SCA)

Last updated

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters [1] [2] 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.

Contents

The central issue was the vicarious liability of an employer for the delictual acts of its employee: in particular, the liability of the Minister of Safety and Security for criminal acts committed by police officers while off duty. An off-duty policeman had pursued persons who had attempted to rob him and shot an innocent third party, rendering him tetraplegic. To determine whether or not the Minister was vicariously liable for the damage thus caused, the court used the two-stage test for vicarious liability, asking first whether or not the employee's acts were committed solely for his purposes and, if so, secondly, whether there was a sufficiently close link between the employee's acts and the employer's purposes and business.

The court found that, in pursuing the would-be robbers, the policeman had acted in both his own interests and those of the South African Police Service (SAPS). He had intended to perform police duties. The first question was thus answered in the negative, which made consideration of the second question unnecessary. The Minister, therefore, was found to be vicariously liable to the third party. The policeman's non-adherence either to the rules of criminal procedure or to police standing orders did not excuse the Minister from liability.

Facts

An off-duty policeman, Constable Lionel Siljeur, while pursuing persons who had attempted to rob him, shot the respondent, Allister Roy Luiters, an innocent third party, thereby rendering him a tetraplegic. It appeared from the evidence that, in pursuing the would-be robbers, Siljeur had used his firearm in a manner which was contrary both to the standing orders of the SAPS and to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. [3] The respondent succeeded in an action for damages in the High Court on the basis that, at the time of the incident, Siljeur had been acting within the course and scope of his employment as a member of the SAPS, making the appellant vicariously liable to the respondent.

Argument

It was argued on appeal, on behalf of the appellant, that Siljeur had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, and that the appellant therefore escaped liability to the respondent.

Judgment

Navsa JA, for a unanimous SCA, held that, in determining whether or not an employer is vicariously liable for acts committed by an employee in the course of a deviation from the normal performance of his duties, two questions have to be answered:

  1. Were the wrongful acts perpetrated solely for the purposes of the employee? This question requires a subjective consideration of the employee's state of mind at the time of the incident and is purely a question of fact.
  2. If so, was there nonetheless a sufficiently close link between the employee's acts and the purposes and the business of the employer? This inquiry raises questions of both fact and law. [4]

As to the first question, Navsa JA held that, in pursuing the would-be robbers, Siljeur had acted in both his own interests and the interests of the SAPS. Although he personally had been subjected to an attempted robbery, he must have been mindful of his authority as a policeman in pursuing the robbers, especially given that he was using his service pistol. The court a quo had therefore found correctly, in Navsa JA's view, that Siljeur's intention at the time of the incident had been to perform police duties. [5]

The fact that Siljeur had adhered neither to the police standing orders, nor to the Criminal Procedure Act, in his pursuit of the would-be robbers, did not, the court decided, excuse the appellant from liability. [6] The appeal, therefore, was dismissed [7] and the decision in the Cape Provincial Division, in Luiters v Minister of Safety and Security, confirmed.

Appeal

The Minister duly appealed to the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the application on the basis that there were no prospects of success on appeal.

Related Research Articles

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

<i>London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

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.

<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.

Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".

NEHAWU v Tsatsi is an important case in South African law, in particular the law of delict. It was heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 14 November 2005, with judgment handed down on 1 December.

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.

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock [2006] ZASCA 174 is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 4 September 2006, with judgment handed down on 29 September. The judges were Zulman JA, Farlam JA, Conradie JA, Mlambo JA and Maya JA. Counsel for the appellant was AR Sholto-Douglas SC ; RS van der Riet SC appeared for the respondent.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC ; PM Wulfsohn SC appeared for the respondents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African criminal law</span> Law relating to crime

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd 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 appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Administrator, Cape, and Another v Ntshwaqela and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 7 November 1989, with judgment handed down on 30 November. Corbett CJ, Hoexter JA, Nestadt JA, Steyn JA and Nicholas AJA.

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, an important case in the South African law of delict, was heard in the Constitutional Court on August 17, 2006. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J and Kondile AJ presided, handing down judgment on November 30. W. Trengove SC and RT Williams SC appeared for the applicant, and HP Viljoen SC and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The State Attorneys, Cape Town, represented the applicant; the respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

In Langley Fox Building Partnership (Pty) Ltd v De Valence, an important case in South African law, the Supreme Court of Appeal once more affirmed that a duty cast upon a defendant might be such that it is discharged only if reasonable precautions to avoid the harm are actually taken, and that the defendant who appoints another to take those steps, and fails to do so, will be liable for the failure, although it was careful to emphasise that Stratford ACJ did not purport to say that "there might be liability as an invariable rule whenever the work entails danger to the public." Goldstone AJA said that "the correct approach to the liability of an employer for the negligence of an independent contractor is to apply the fundamental rule that obliges a person to exercise that degree of care which the circumstances demand."

<i>Kondis v State Transport Authority</i> Australian High Court case

Kondis v State Transport Authority, was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 16 October 1984. It concerned the liability of an employer for the injury of an employee, and specifically whether the duty of care to provide a safe system of work could be delegated. It had been challenged on the basis that the person whose negligence had directly caused the injury was not actually an employee, but an independent contractor, and the duty of care to provide a safe system of work had been delegated to them at the time of the injury. However, it was found that the duty of care could not be delegated in certain cases, and the employer was found liable.

References

Books

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2006 (4) SA 160 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Case No. 213/05.
  3. ↑ Act 51 of 1977.
  4. ↑ Paras 14, 19.
  5. ↑ Paras 20, 23, 26.
  6. ↑ Para 28.
  7. ↑ Para 29.
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.