Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA)> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 15 of
15
with 100 items per page.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) abstract "Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.The central issue was the vicarious liability of an employer for the delictual acts of its employee: in particular, the liability of the Minister of Safety and Security for criminal acts committed by police officers while off duty. An off-duty policeman had pursued persons who had attempted to rob him and shot an innocent third party, rendering him tetraplegic. To determine whether or not the Minister was vicariously liable for the damage thus caused, the court used the two-stage test for vicarious liability, asking first whether or not the employee's acts were committed solely for his purposes and, if so, secondly, whether there was a sufficiently close link between the employee's acts and the employer's purposes and business.The court found that, in pursuing the would-be robbers, the policeman had acted in both his own interests and those of the South African Police Service (SAPS). He had intended to perform police duties. The first question was thus answered in the negative, which made consideration of the second question unncessary. The Minister, therefore, was found to be vicariously liable to the third party. The policeman's non-adherence either to the rules of criminal procedure or to police standing orders did not excuse the Minister from liability.".
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) wikiPageID "38201201".
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) wikiPageRevisionID "579996121".
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) hasPhotoCollection Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA).
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) subject Category:2006_in_South_Africa.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) subject Category:2006_in_case_law.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) subject Category:South_African_delict_case_law.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) subject Category:Supreme_Court_of_Appeal_of_South_Africa_cases.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) comment "Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein.".
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) label "Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters (SCA)".
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) sameAs m.0pl22mp.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) sameAs Q6866315.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) sameAs Q6866315.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) wasDerivedFrom Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA)?oldid=579996121.
- Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA) isPrimaryTopicOf Minister_of_Safety_and_Security_v_Luiters_(SCA).