HOME      ABOUT US      OUR CORNERSTONE      READ US      CONTACT US

Tel: 011 646 4558 | Cell: 083 928 9484 | attorney@moni.co.za

We all know that a car is a dangerous object. The driver must exhibit a measure of ‘care, skill and dexterity’ at all times in order to remain in control of the vehicle even, especially, when a sudden emergency occurs. If the driver fails then s/he is negligent. Consider Mrs Lombard, a driver who upon approaching a stop street was stung by a hornet on the face. She panicked, lost control of the vehicle, shot through the approaching stop street and collided with another vehicle. The court held that a reasonable driver would, despite the hornet’s sting, have kept control of the motor car and stopped at the stop street. Mrs Lombard was convicted of negligent driving, this conviction was upheld.
In Labour Law the test for negligence is objective. In other words what duty of care would be expected of a reasonable person at the workplace? A trier of fact should ask whether the offending employee would have foreseen the reasonable possibility of the conduct injuring the employer and causing it loss. Therefore, negligence is when the offending employee should have taken reasonable steps to guard against the foreseeable occurrence of harm.
Gross negligence denotes recklessness, an entire failure to give consideration to the consequence of his/her actions or omissions and a total disregard of duty. A person is guilty of gross negligence who gives no consideration whatsoever to the consequences of his/her act or omission. In the application of the recklessness test, a trier of fact should have regard to the scope of operations of the company, the role, functions and powers of the offending employee. The question is whether the conduct complained of departs from the standard of the reasonable man to such an extent as to amount to gross negligence. Further, did the employee give consideration to the consequences of his/her act or omission? The Employee’s conduct would therefore have to be viewed, objectively and on a balance of probabilities, as being reckless. In other words, the employee’s action or omission was deliberate to an extent that s/he could have foreseen the potential of harm to the employer.


Download (pdf file)
Back



Contact Us

Return to top

Your Labour Law specialist - Experience Empowerment ©

Twitter Linked In Facebook

Home    About Us    Read Us    Contact Us

PAIA Manual | BEE Verification | Copyright © 2009 - 2017 Moni Attorneys Incorporated & OJB Web Development | Photo credits: Gerry Pelser, iStock

Legal Notice: The information contained herein is provided for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Whilst we take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of information contained herein, we accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever if any information is, for whatever reason, incorrect or corrupted. We further accept no responsibility for any loss or damage that may arise from reliance on information contained herein.