Sea Harvest Corporation v Duncan Dock Cold Storage

Last updated
Sea Harvest Corporation v Duncan Dock Cold Storage
Court Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Full case nameSea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another
Decided26 November 1999 (1999-11-26)
Citation(s)2000 (1) SA 827 (SCA); Case No. 12/97
Court membership
Judges sittingScott, Smalberger, Howie, Marais, and Streicher JJA
Case opinions
Decision byScott JA
Keywords
Delict, determining the issue of culpa before the issue of wrongfulness, foreseeability in relation to culpa

Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another [1] is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of delict and on the question of negligence.

Contents

Facts

A recently built cold store, owned by the first respondent and erected on land in the Table Bay harbour owned by the second respondent, was set alight by a distress flare fired to celebrate the New Year. The fire destroyed the store and its contents.

Among the contents were goods owned by the first and second appellants, which had been stored in terms of oral contracts of deposit. The main section of the store containing the cold rooms was steel-framed and roofed with two pitches of fibre cement separated by a fibreglass box gutter. The roof was insulated with panels of expanded polystyrene sheathed in aluminium. The cold rooms themselves were constructed of similar panels, although both the polystyrene core and aluminium cladding were thicker. The roof sheets were non-combustible, but the fibreglass guttering, though requiring a "fairly substantial heat source" to ignite, was combustible, as was the polystyrene core of the insulation panels, although the aluminium cladding would provide some initial protection.

Because the port area did not fall within the jurisdiction of the local municipality, plans for buildings required the approval of the port engineer rather than that of the city council. The plans for the cold store facility were, nonetheless, submitted to the council's fire department for comment. The fire department classified the store as "moderate risk storage" and required, in terms of the applicable SA Bureau of Standards code, the installation of a sprinkler system in the roof void and in the store itself. (No sprinkler system would have been required by a "low risk" classification.) At the time, only one or two cold stores in South Africa had sprinkler systems. The same was generally true of cold stores in the United Kingdom and Europe. After discussing the fire department's "requirements" with the project engineer and architect, and then consulting the National Building Regulations and SABS code, the port engineer concluded that the correct classification of the building was "low risk" and that a sprinkler system was accordingly not required. None was therefore installed.

Despite the prohibition against the firing of distress flares in the harbour, other than for the purposes of assistance, it appeared that the firing of flares at midnight on New Year's Eve had been a regular occurrence. There was no evidence that a flare had ever previously caused a fire in the harbour or its surrounding areas. The parties were agreed

It was common cause that a sprinkler system would either have extinguished the fire or at least have served to control it.

In an action for damages against the respondents, the appellants alleged that the respondents had been negligent in failing to instal a sprinkler system. A Provincial Division dismissed their claims.

Judgment

In an appeal, the court held (per Scott JA, with Smalberger JA, Howie JA and H Marais JA concurring, and Streicher JA concurring but for different reasons) that the true enquiry was whether, in all the circumstances, the project engineer (who had designed the facility and who, as project-leader, had co-ordinated the work of various professional firms engaged to assist in the project) had been negligent in failing to install a sprinkler system, and whether the port engineer's failure to insist upon its installation had been both wrongful and negligent. [2]

Whether what had been labelled as the relative theory of negligence (articulated in Mukheiber v Raath [3] [4] ) or what had been labelled as the absolute or abstract theory of negligence (articulated in Kruger v Coetzee ) [5] [6] was adopted, it should not be overlooked that, ultimately, the true criterion for determining negligence was whether, in the particular circumstances, the conduct complained of fell short of the standard of the reasonable person. [7]

Whichever formula were adopted, the court held that there should always be a measure of flexibility to accommodate "grey area" cases: The need for various limitations to the broadness of the enquiry where circumstances so demanded had long been acknowledged. It had thus been recognised that, while the precise or exact manner in which the harm had occurred need not have been foreseeable, the general manner of its occurrence had to have been reasonably foreseeable. [8]

There could be no doubt that, as a general possibility a fire in the cold store had reasonably been foreseeable; indeed, fire extinguishers and hose reels had been installed at various places within the building to guard against that eventuality. It was also true that the causes of fire were varied and many. It was nonetheless axiomatic that what was reasonably foreseeable had necessarily to be confined to those fires, whatever their cause, which fell within the parameters of reasonable possibility. What would, typically, have been reasonably foreseeable in this instance would have been the possibility of a fire starting somewhere in the building itself. What had actually occurred had been something entirely different. Simply to equate it, for the purposes of determining culpability, with just any fire could have the effect of attributing culpability for damage resulting from a danger which in truth had not been foreseeable as a reasonable possibility. [9]

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court held that the question of culpability had to be determined not simply by asking whether a fire, any fire, had been foreseeable but whether a reasonable person in the position of the project engineer or the port engineer would have foreseen the danger of fire emanating from an external source on the roof of the building with sufficient intensity to ignite the gutter. [10]

Given that the building was relatively isolated in relation to other buildings in the harbour area, there was nothing about its locality rendering it more vulnerable to fire. The region, furthermore, was not prone to lightning of the kind which would set fire to buildings. Save for a burning flare, it was difficult to conceive of any other source of fire which could have set the roof alight from above. [11]

Bearing in mind that distress flares had been designed to burn out at a height of not less than 150 feet and that, notwithstanding the long-standing practice of firing off flares to celebrate the New Year, there had never been a fire caused in that fashion, the court held that, even if the project engineer and port engineer had known of the practice (which, they testified, they had not), the possibility of a flare landing while still burning and setting fire to the gutter of a building constructed with an otherwise non-combustible shell was so remote as not to have been reasonably foreseeable. [12]

The court held, accordingly, that the evidence had established that the danger of fire emanating from an external source on the roof of the building with sufficient intensity to ignite the gutter had not been reasonably foreseeable; or, expressed differently, that a reasonable person in the position of the project engineer and port engineer would not have foreseen the danger as real enough to warrant precautionary measures. [13] The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the decision in the Cape Provincial Division, in Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd and Another, confirmed.

Further reading: [14] [15] [16]

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.

Bolton v. Stone[1951] AC 850, [1951] 1 All ER 1078 is a leading House of Lords case in the tort of negligence, establishing that a defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee.

Delict (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.

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

<i>Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co</i>

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

In English law, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong.

<i>Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd</i>

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, commonly known as Wagon Mound , is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.

<i>Hughes v Lord Advocate</i>

Hughes v Lord Advocate[1963] UKHL 31 is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort.

<i>Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd</i>

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and the ignis suus principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence.

Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3, is a leading case in the development of the law of negligence and forms part of Scots delict law and English tort law. It embeds the concept of the reasonable person.

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.

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.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

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.

In S v Russell, an important case in South African criminal law, heard on July 12, 1967, the accused had been warned of the danger of operating a crane under a live electric wire, but had failed to pass on the warning to his co-employees. This omission, constituting negligence, led to the death of one of them. He was convicted of culpable homicide.

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.”

References

Case law

Notes

  1. ↑ 2000 (1) SA 827 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Para 18.
  3. ↑ 1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA).
  4. ↑ 1077E-F.
  5. ↑ 1966 (2) SA 428 (A).
  6. ↑ 430E-F.
  7. ↑ Para 21.
  8. ↑ Para 22.
  9. ↑ Para 23.
  10. ↑ Para 24.
  11. ↑ Para 25.
  12. ↑ Para 27.
  13. ↑ Para 28.
  14. ↑ Neethling et al Law of Delict 7th ed (2016)
  15. ↑ Van der Walt and Midgley Principles of Delict 3rd ed (2005)
  16. ↑ Loubser, M and Midgley, R (eds) The Law of Delict in South Africa 3rd ed (2017)
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.