The past, present and future of vicarious liability in South Africa

• Pages: 225-253
• Date: 01 January 2012
• Author: Daleen Millard,Monray Marsellus Botha
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC135279
• Published date: 01 January 2012

225

The past, present and future of vicarious

liability in South Africa

Monray Marsellus Botha

BLC LLB LLM BCom (Hons) (UP) MCom (UJ)

Senior lecturer in Mercantile Law, Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg

Daleen Millard

BIur LLB LLM (UP) LLD (UJ)

Professor in Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg

OPSOMMING

Die verlede, hede en toekoms van middelike aanspreeklikheid in

Suid-Afrika

Die onlangse – en volgens sommige, onrusbarende – tendens in Suid-Afrika

om werkgewers (veral die staat) aanspreeklik te hou vir die onregmatige,

skuldige dade van hulle werknemers gee aanleiding tot probleme en enige

ondersoek na die moontlike middellike aanspreeklikheid van die werkgewer

moet noodwendig altyd begin met die vraag of die werknemer wel ’n delik

gepleeg het. Waar daar nie ’n delik is nie, is daar nie sprake van direkte of

middellike aanspreeklikheid nie. Dit is belangrik om vas te stel wat die

verhouding tussen die delikspleger en sy werkgewer was waar dit vasstaan

dat die werknemer wel ’n delik gepleeg het. Dit is dan juis by die vasstelling

of die werknemer in die loop van sy diens gehandel het dat beleids-

oorwegings na vore kom. Suid-Afrikaanse howe het oor die jare toetse

geformuleer om vas te stel of ’n werknemer in die loop van sy diens

gehandel het of nie. Die doel van hierdie artikel is om die probleem van

middellike aanspreeklikheid onder die loep te neem. Eisers probeer altyd in

die diepste sakke grawe – diè van werkgewers – en hierdie tendens sal

waarskynlik voortgesit word. Hierdie artikel streef om ’n nuwe perspektief op

middellike aanspreeklikheid te gee en begin deur ’n kort historiese oorsig van

hierdie vorm van skuldlose aanspreeklikheid in Suid-Afrika. Die artikel

bespreek ook ’n aantal spesifieke probleme, waarvan die dilemma

aangaande werknemers wat op diens is of nie en die ingewikkelde vraag

rondom diensbestek die eerste is. Die artikel ondersoek ook die Wet op

Arbeidsverhoudinge soos wat dit op wangedrag van toepassing is en die aard

van die verhouding tussen werkgewer en werknemer. Direkte aanspreek-

likheid as ’n alternatiewe eisoorsaak teen werkgewers onder sekere

omstandighede word spesifiek gemeld.

1Introduction

Ellen Sturgis Hooper wrote:

I slept, and dreamed that life was beauty;

I woke, and found that life was duty.1

Sturgis Hooper’s words epitomise that which is arguably the defining

aspect of daily life, namely, duty. Formal duty, in the form of

1

Beauty and Duty

(1840).

226

2012 De Jure

employment, often defines an individual. It is not uncommon to refer to

someone as “Bob the builder” or to introduce a friend by saying: “Pearl’s

a singer.”2 This close association between an individual’s name and his

or her occupation is indicative of society’s expectations that people will

generally act in accordance with their duties, training and expertise. It is

perhaps not surprising then that the rape victim in

F v Minister of Safety

and Security

3 expected the police officer who was on stand-by duty to

take her home and not to harm her. Surely one may expect a police

officer to behave like a police officer?

However, if expecting someone to act according to what we deem to

be his or her “duty” was that straightforward, we would not be writing

this article. The recent – and some say alarming – trend in South Africa

to hold employers (particularly the government) liable for wrongful,

culpable acts committed by their employees gives rise to difficulties and

any inquiry into the possible vicarious liability of the employer should

necessarily always start by asking whether there was in fact a wrongful,

culpable act committed by the employee.4 If not, there can neither be

direct liability of the employee nor vicarious liability by the employer.

Where the employee did indeed commit a delict, the relationship

between the wrongdoer and his employer at the time of the wrongdoing

becomes important.5 It is then often, in determining whether the

employee was acting in the scope of his employment, that normative

issues come to the fore. Over the years South African courts have devised

tests to determine whether an employee was in fact acting in the scope

of his employment.6

The purpose of the article is to delve a bit deeper into the issue of

vicarious liability. Plaintiffs always seek to dig into the deepest pockets –

that of an employer – and this trend is likely to continue.7 The article

seeks to contrast vicarious liability with direct liability and sets out to

sketch a brief historical overview of this form of strict liability in South

Africa. It discusses the case of

F

as an example of an extreme situation

in which vicarious liability arose.

In addition, the article discusses a number of specific issues, first of

which is the dilemma around on- and off-duty employees and the

problematic issue of “scope of employment”. The article examines the

Labour Relations Act8 as it applies to misconduct and the nature of the

2 Written by Leibner

et al

and performed by Elkie Brooks, “Pearl’s a singer”

tells the tale of a performer who “sings songs for the lost and the lonely”. We

are also told that “her job is entertaining folks, singing songs and telling

jokes, in a nightclub.” Accessed from http://www.lyrics.com/pearls-a-singer-

lyrics-elkie-brooks.html on 2012-03-13.

3 [2011] ZACC 37.

4 Neethling, Potgieter & Visser

Law of Deli ct

(2010) 365.

5 Neethling

et al

366-368.

6 Neethling

et al

368-371.

7 Potgieter “Preliminary Thoughts on Whether Vicarious Liability Should be

Extended to the Parent-Child Relationship” 2011

Obiter

189 191.

8 66 of 1995.