|
''Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton''〔2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA).〕 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. == Facts == In terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act,〔Act 75 of 1969, s 3(1).〕 one Erna Lochiel McArdell in September 1993 applied successfully for a gun licence. Ten months later, during a parking-lot altercation, she shot Hamilton in the back. Hamilton sustained a serious spinal injury, rendering him "permanently wheelchair-bound,"〔Para 2.〕 and some three years later claimed damages against the Minister of Safety and Security. The police, he argued, had been in negligent breach of their "legal duty to exercise reasonable care in considering, investigating, recommending and ultimately granting McArdell's application for a firearm licence."〔Para 4.〕 They had incurred vicarious liability, in that their dereliction of duty, unwittingly but effectively, had enabled McArdell's assault. The applicable delictual action was the ''lex Aquilia'', and all the essential elements of delict were present: * Hamilton had suffered physical harm; * the conduct of the police had constituted an omission, been wrongful and incurred fault in the form of ''dolus''; and * there was clear factual causation between the negligence of the police and Hamilton's shooting. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Minister of Safety & Security v Hamilton」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|