|
''Smit v Abrahams''〔1994 (4) SA 1 (A).〕 is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges. The case is especially important in the area of delict, bearing on the question of the remoteness of damages and a plaintiff's impecuniosity. The plaintiff in this case had seen his vehicle, which he had used in his business as a hawker, irreparably damaged in a collision. In order to continue his business, he had hired another vehicle for three months, but had been unable to afford the purchase of another vehicle. A rule of English law has it that expenses resulting from the plaintiff's impecuniosity are in principle irrecoverable. This rule has no right of existence in South African law, however, as its rigidity is inconsistent with the flexible approach whereby a South African court will consider on the basis of policy considerations whether there is a sufficiently close connection between act and consequence. The impecuniosity of the plaintiff, the court asserted, is merely a fact to be considered together with all other facts. The reasonable foreseeability of damages is not decisive, but it can be used as a subsidiary test in the application of a flexible criterion. The court held that it is dangerous to attempt to distill fixed or generally applicable rules or principles from a process of comparison with other cases. In the present case, the court held that the plaintiff's conduct in hiring another vehicle was not unreasonable, having regard to the predicament in which he found himself; nor would it be unreasonable or unjust towards the defendant to hold him liable for compensation for such loss. == Facts == A bakkie belonging to Abrahams had been irreparably damaged in a collision with a vehicle driven by Smit. Abrahams had used the bakkie in his hawker's business. In an action for damages in a magistrate's court against Smith, Abrahams had claimed # payment of the market value of the bakkie; and # compensation for the rental (for three months) which Abrahams had paid for the use of another vehicle which he had had to hire in order to conduct his business. It appeared from the evidence that Abrahams had not been in a financial position to afford purchasing another vehicle, or even to pay the deposit. Smit's claim succeeded in the magistrate's court, and an appeal to a Provincial Division against the award of damages on the second claim failed. 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「Smit v Abrahams」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|