In the law of delict there are five elements that should be considered before someone is held liable for an act that caused damage. These elements include the nature of the act, the wrongfulness/unlawfulness of the act, the damage caused by the act, that causal link and lastly the fault. If the evidence obtained from the act and matched against the element is adequate and proves that the act caused the damage then it can be concluded that the act did indeed cause the act and someone or an organisation will be held liable for the damage caused and will have to face certain consequences. In most case at school the educator is held responsible for the damage the learners suffered but educators cannot be held accountable for everything that happens
…show more content…
In this case the aspect of wrongfulness requires looking at the educator’s legal duty. The educator has a legal duty to ensure the wellbeing of learners (Oosthuizen et al 2016:123). The educators conduct becomes wrong when she/he infringes on the learners subjective rights of the learner. Now looking at the educators legal duties they include:
The in loco parantis position.
This is a common law that is about the fact that when a learner is at school, the educator stand in as a parent in terms of the authority and the duties (Oosthuizen et al 2016:123). This means that Ms Joker had a legal duty of standing in as a parent and it implies that she should put the learners need at heart and ensure their safety like a parent would do to their …show more content…
These medical expenses are that of the treatment of the injuries and also the treatment of the damage that the injuries caused. His no longer going to be able to become what he aspired to be, as his future is now vague as he suffer brain damage meaning he will not be able to study further and have a career of his choice. With the non-patrimonial loss because he had brain damage as a result of the injuries he sustain when he was hit by the sprinkler he has mental damage he has lost who he is because a brain damage affect a person's thinking, understanding, language skills and memory (Anon, s.a.), for the injury on his personality he could be compensated if the act is found to be the fault of Ms
In this case the aspect of wrongfulness requires looking at the educator’s legal duty. The educator has a legal duty to ensure the wellbeing of learners (Oosthuizen et al 2016:123). The educators conduct becomes wrong when she/he infringes on the learners subjective rights of the learner. Now looking at the educators legal duties they include:
The in loco parantis position.
This is a common law that is about the fact that when a learner is at school, the educator stand in as a parent in terms of the authority and the duties (Oosthuizen et al 2016:123). This means that Ms Joker had a legal duty of standing in as a parent and it implies that she should put the learners need at heart and ensure their safety like a parent would do to their …show more content…
These medical expenses are that of the treatment of the injuries and also the treatment of the damage that the injuries caused. His no longer going to be able to become what he aspired to be, as his future is now vague as he suffer brain damage meaning he will not be able to study further and have a career of his choice. With the non-patrimonial loss because he had brain damage as a result of the injuries he sustain when he was hit by the sprinkler he has mental damage he has lost who he is because a brain damage affect a person's thinking, understanding, language skills and memory (Anon, s.a.), for the injury on his personality he could be compensated if the act is found to be the fault of Ms