*Minister of Correctional Services v Lee Flashcards
(22 cards)
In Minister of Correctional Services v Lee, what harm did the plaintiff suffer?
The plaintiff contracted tuberculosis while incarcerated.
What did the plaintiff allege against the defendant’s employees?
That they negligently failed to prevent the spread of tuberculosis.
Were the defendant’s employees acting within the course of their employment?
Yes, they acted within the course and scope of employment.
What did the SCA accept regarding the conduct of the defendant’s employees?
That they were negligent in failing to maintain adequate disease management.
What duty did the employees owe to the plaintiff?
A duty not to cause harm through negligent omission.
What did the plaintiff need to prove for delictual liability?
That the negligent omission caused the harm suffered.
Which causation test did the SCA apply in this case?
The but-for test, as established in Skosana and Siman.
What was the plaintiff’s burden under the but-for test?
To prove on a balance of probabilities that, had reasonable steps been taken, he would not have contracted tuberculosis.
Did the plaintiff succeed in discharging this burden before the SCA?
No, he failed to discharge the burden of proof.
What was the SCA’s decision regarding the plaintiff’s claim?
The claim was dismissed.
What did the Constitutional Court (CC) confirm as the requirements for delictual liability?
Culpable conduct must cause harm.
What causation test did the CC affirm as the general rule?
The but-for test.
Under what condition did the CC state that a flexible approach to causation may be allowed?
Where strict application of the but-for test would result in injustice.
Can causation be found even if the but-for test is not strictly met, according to the CC?
Yes, under certain circumstances, based on a flexible approach.
What criticism was directed at the Constitutional Court’s use of the flexible approach?
That it is not clearly supported by precedent and lacks citation of authority.
How did critics view the CC’s interpretation of the Siman case?
As a misreading, since Siman applied the but-for test properly and did not support a flexible approach.
Did the Constitutional Court clearly change the law on causation?
It is unclear; the Court may have restated what it believed to be existing law.
What remains the cornerstone of factual causation in delict?
The but-for test.
What is contentious about the CC’s flexible approach to causation?
Its legitimacy is debated and not firmly grounded in case law.
Who bears the burden of proving causation in delictual claims?
The plaintiff, on a balance of probabilities.
What factor complicated the application of causation in this case?
The intervening act of disease infection.
