Dukes v Marthinusen
In Dukes v Marthinusen, the Supreme Court of Appeal held it to be consistent with principles of the law of delictual liability that a duty cast upon a defendant might be such that it is discharged only if reasonable precautions to avoid harm are actually taken, and that the defendant who appoints another to take those steps, and fails to do, will be liable for the failure. In casu, the defendant had employed an independent contractor to demolish certain buildings. In a claim for damages arising from the negligent performance of the work, Stratford ACJ said the following after considering various cases in South Africa and in England:
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Dukes v Marthinusen
In Dukes v Marthinusen, the Supreme Court of Appeal held it to be consistent with principles of the law of delictual liability that a duty cast upon a defendant might be such that it is discharged only if reasonable precautions to avoid harm are actually taken, and that the defendant who appoints another to take those steps, and fails to do, will be liable for the failure. In casu, the defendant had employed an independent contractor to demolish certain buildings. In a claim for damages arising from the negligent performance of the work, Stratford ACJ said the following after considering various cases in South Africa and in England:
has abstract
In Dukes v Marthinusen, the Su ...... s an irrelevant consideration.
@en
Wikipage page ID
40,389,149
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
678,252,326
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
In Dukes v Marthinusen, the Su ...... n South Africa and in England:
@en
label
Dukes v Marthinusen
@en