IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No 122/99
REPORTABLE
MESSINA ASSOCIATED CARRIERS
Appellant
and
FREDERIK THEODORUS KLEINHAUS
Respondent
CORAM
:
SCOTT JA, et  MELUNSKY,  BRAND AJJA
HEARD
:
6 MARCH 2001
DELIVERED
:
27 MARCH 2001
Vicarious liability of owner of motor car - not a passenger at time of accident
J U D G M E N T

SCOTT JA/.....
SCOTT   JA:
[1] In the early afternoon of 10 April 1997 the respondent’s vehicle, while
being driven by the respondent’s 19 year-old son near Messina in the Northern
Province, was damaged beyond repair when it skidded, left the road and ultimately
burst into flames. No other vehicle was involved in the accident. What caused it to
skid was a relatively large deposit of coal-dust which had spilled onto the road the
previous day and which had formed a layer on the left side of the road for vehicles
travelling in the direction of Tshipise just beyond the crest of a blind rise and on a
bend. The appellant is a cartage contractor which at the time was engaged in
transporting coal-dust from a mine in the Tshipise area to Messina. The respondent
instituted action against the appellant in the Transvaal Provincial Division for
damages arising from the loss of his vehicle. He alleged that the appellant’s
employees had negligently allowed the coal-dust to spill onto the road from one of
its trucks and thereafter, despite being warned of the danger, had negligently failed

to remove the coal-dust from the road.
[2] The appellant denied that the coal-dust had emanated from one of its
trucks or that its employees had been negligent in any of the respects alleged. In the
course of the trial, however, it amended its plea alleging in the alternative that the
sole cause of the accident was the negligent driving of the respondent’s son for
whose negligence the respondent was vicariously liable. In the further alternative it
alleged that the accident was caused by both the negligence of its servants and the
respondent’s son and that by reason of the respondent’s vicarious liability for his
son’s negligence any damages to which he would otherwise become entitled fell to
be reduced in accordance with the provisions of s 1 of the Apportionment of
Damages Act 34 of 1956.
[3] It was common cause that respondent’s son, to whom I shall refer as
Gerrit, lived with his parents at Tshipise where the respondent was the proprietor
of a garage and service station. On the date of the accident he had been given

permission by his mother on the respondent’s behalf to drive to Messina in the
respondent’s motor car in order to hire video tapes. While there, he was also to do
the banking for the garage business and to purchase some groceries for his mother.
The accident occurred at about 2.45 pm on the return journey some 10 km from
Messina. The only passenger in the vehicle at the time was Gerrit’s 16 year-old
friend, Shawn Cawood, who had accompanied him from Tshipise. The speed limit
where the accident occurred is 120 km per hour. Gerrit frankly admitted in evidence
that at the time he was travelling at a speed of between 130 and 140 km per hour.
[4] McCreath J in the Court a quo found that the coal-dust had fallen from
one of the appellant’s trucks and that the respondent’s servants had been negligent
in allowing it to happen and in failing to remove the coal-dust after being warned of
its presence on the road and that it constituted a danger. The learned judge found,
in addition, that there was a causal connection between the presence of the coal-
dust on the road and the respondent’s vehicle suddenly skidding and going out of

control.   These findings were not disputed on appeal.
[5] No finding was made regarding Gerrit’s alleged contributory
negligence in view of the Court’s decision on the question of whether the
respondent could be held vicariously liable for Gerrit’s negligence.   McCreath J
held that by reason of the respondent’s non-presence in the vehicle  the respondent
could not be held so liable. In arriving at this conclusion the learned judge
considered himself bound by Braamfontein Food Centre v Blake 1982 (3) SA 248
(T), a Full Court decision of two judges, and gave judgment in favour of the
respondent for the sum of R265 350,00, being the full amount of the latter’s claim.
However, the judge expressed doubt as to the correctness of the decision in the
Braamfontein Food Centre case and granted leave to appeal solely on the issues
of vicarious liability and Gerrit’s contributory negligence.
[6] The photographs handed in at the trial show the general topography
of the area where the accident occurred. The road itself, which is clearly not a

major highway, is neither straight nor level. It winds its way round a series of hills
and there are both rises and bends immediately before and after the point where the
vehicle left the road. Furthermore, it has no hard shoulders or emergency lanes as
they are sometimes called, and is boarded by what appears to be loose gravel.
Gerrit himself described the point at which he lost control of the vehicle as just
beyond the crest of a blind rise and on a bend. In my judgment one need do no
more than look at the photographs to appreciate that a speed of between 130 and
140 km per hour was wholly inappropriate in the circumstances and not the speed
at which a reasonable driver would drive on that road. The respondent sought to
make something of the road-holding capability of his motor car and the ease with
which it could negotiate the bends in the road at quite breath-taking speeds - he
boasted that he had travelled on that same stretch of road at speeds of up to 200
km per hour. But that is not the point. The road is not a race track; it is used by all
manner of vehicles travelling at different speeds. Untoward events occur and occur

frequently. A reasonable driver is mindful of this and regulates his speed
accordingly. (Cf Woods v Administrator Transvaal and Another 1960 (1) SA 311
(T) at 314 C - 315 C.) What is a safe speed will depend upon the circumstances of
each particular case but, as I have said, to drive on that stretch of road at a speed
of up to 140 km per hour is to my mind quite clearly negligent.
[7] The coal-dust was spilt on the road at about 4 pm on 9 April 1997.
The accident in question occurred some 23 hours later at about 2.45 pm the next
day. The evidence revealed that during this period a number of vehicles travelling
within the speed limit actually skidded as a result of the coal-dust. None, however,
had left the road and there had been no accidents. By contrast, the respondent’s
vehicle, after skidding on the coal-dust, proceeded out of control down the hill and
fortunately over a culvert, thereby avoiding what looks like a sloot, before leaving
the road on the right hand side and proceeding uphill for an estimated distance of
some 50 to 60 metres on rough terrain adjacent to the road. It finally stopped when

it hit some object, rolled and landed back on its wheels, whereupon it caught fire.
Gerrit recalled that it all happened very quickly.
[8] In the circumstances described above, the probabilities are
overwhelming, in my view, that Gerrit’s excessive speed contributed causally to the
accident and the extent of the damage sustained. Nonetheless the appellant must,
I think, bear the major portion of the blame.   It had been told the previous day of
the spill and that it constituted a danger to vehicles using the road, but had done
nothing about it until after the accident. I would apportion their respective fault at
25 : 75 in favour of Gerrit.
[9] The question that arises is whether the respondent is to be held
vicariously liable for Gerrit’s negligence.
[10] It is trite law that an employer is liable for the delicts of an employee
committed in the course and scope of the latter’s employment. The rule is based
on ‘considerations of social policy” (per Corbett CJ in Mhlongo and Another NO

v Minister of Police 1978 (2) SA 551 (A) at 567 H).   Its origin lies no doubt in the
need to provide the victim of a delict with a defendant of substance able to pay
damages. But even in the absence of an actual employer-employee relationship the
law will permit the recovery of damages from one person for a delict committed by
another where the relationship between them and the interest of the one in the
conduct of the other is such as to render the situation analogous to that of an
employee acting in the course and scope of his or her employment, or as
Watermeyer J put it in Van Blommenstein v Reynolds 1934 CPD 265 at 269, where
“in the eye of the law” the one was in the position of the other’s servant. In such
a situation one is really dealing with an analogous extension based on policy
considerations of the employer’s liability for the wrongful conduct of an employee.
(See Boucher v Du Toit 1978 (3) SA 965 (O) at 972 D - E).   Over the years the
elements of the legal relationship between employer and employee and the interest
of the one in the conduct of the other have been isolated in order to determine

whether in the absence of such a relationship one person should, nonetheless, be
held liable for a delict of another.   This is particularly so in the context of a motor
vehicle being driven negligently by someone other than the driver. Thus in South
African General Investment & Trust Co Ltd v Mavaneni 1963 (4) SA 89 (D) at 91
E - G Fannin J formulated the inquiry as follows:
“In South Africa the owner of a motor car is liable for the negligent driving
of it by another person authorised by him to drive it if:
(a)
the vehicle is being driven on behalf of the owner, and
(b)
the relationship between the owner and the driver is such that the
former retains the right to control the manner in which the car shall be
driven.”
The above passage has been repeatedly quoted with approval in subsequent cases.
Nonetheless, the decisions in the various Provincial Divisions both prior and
subsequent to Mavaneni’s case are in many instances not reconcilable.   The
reason is largely attributable to a greater emphasis being placed on one or other of
the elements referred to by Fannin J.

[11] In two reported judgments the requirement that there be the right to
control was increased to a requirement that there be the power to control.   The first
was Kinnear v Ruto Flour Mills (Pty) Ltd 1968 (2) PH 051 (T). In that case the
driver of a motor car was taking it to a garage to have it serviced and filled with
petrol when the accident occurred. Whether he was doing so at the request of the
owner, who was not present in the motor car, or whether he was doing so as a
favour for the owner, was left unresolved. Of significance is that one of the grounds
upon which Nicholas J held the owner not to be vicariously liable was that he was
not present in the vehicle and therefore he -
“was not in possession, and was not in a position to exercise direct control
over the driving of the motor car”.   (My emphasis.)
The second was Braamfontein Food Centre v Blake, supra, which is the decision
referred to by McCreath J in the Court below and by which the judge considered
himself bound.   In this case the driver of a truck involved in an accident was due

to become an employee of the truck’s owner once the period of notice given to his
existing employer had expired. As a favour he had offered to drive the truck to the
owner’s home.   Since he did not know where the owner lived the latter drove
ahead in another vehicle to show the way. The collision occurred during the
journey. The issue was whether the owner was vicariously liable for the driver’s
negligence.   Goldstone J, with whom Nicolas J concurred, referred to Boucher’s
case, supra, and relying on certain dicta of Van Heerden J held that for the owner
to be vicariously liable he had to have the “power to control” the driver and not
merely the “right to control” him. Accordingly, although on the facts of the case the
owner retained the power to determine the route to be followed, the time of
departure and the approximate speed, this was held “not sufficient to have
constituted the retention of control” by the owner necessary to render him liable
(at 251 E). The learned judge doubted “whether this kind of liability can arise where
the owner or other person sought to be held liable ... is not actually present in the

vehicle” (at 251F).   On the basis of the Court’s reasoning it is difficult to see how
it could. Both decisions have been the subject of trenchant criticism. (See Cooper
Delictual Liability in Motor Law 446.) Their correctness was similarly challenged
by counsel for the appellant in this Court.
[12] It is important to bear in mind that the question in issue is the existence
of vicarious liability, not personal (direct) liability. The former, of course, is not
dependent on fault on the part of the person sought to be held liable.  An employer
who happens to be present in a vehicle may well incur personal  liability if he
exercises the right to control the manner in which his employee drives in such a way
as to cause harm to another or if he fails to exercise it in order to prevent harm to
another, for eg if he were to instruct the driver to drive at a dangerous speed or if
he were to sit back and allow the driver to continue to drive in a dangerous manner.
The same would be true of an owner-passenger in circumstances where the driver
was not his employee. But direct control or the power to control has never been a

requirement of vicarious liability. (The references in the context of horse drawn
carriages to “actual control” or the “party in possession” in early 19 century cases
in England relate to the personal and not vicarious liability of the owner or
employer.  See Atiyah Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts   125 - 126).   The
right to control, being an element of the employer - employee relationship, is
regarded as an important factor in determining whether such a relationship exists,
but once it is found to exist it is of no consequence that at the time the employee
commits the delict the employer is not present to exercise his right of control. In
these circumstances there would seem in principle to be no reaon why, in the case
of an owner who is not the employer of the driver, the physical presence of the
former and the power to control (as opposed to the right to control) should be
introduced as a requirement for vicarious liability.
[13] It is true that in many, if not all, reported cases in which an owner (in
the absence of an employer - employee relationship) has been held vicariously

liable, he has been a passenger in the vehicle when it was negligently driven. But that
is no reason for requiring his presence in the vehicle as a rule of law. Such a
requirement is not only difficult to justify on a rational basis but strikes me as likely
to produce anomalous results. An owner who allows or instructs another to drive
his motor vehicle undoubtedly has a right to give directions as to the manner in
which it is to be driven. (Cf Auto Protection Insurance Co Ltd v MacDonald (Pty)
Ltd 1962 (1) SA 793 (A) at 797 H - 780 D).  Whether this right of control can
always be equated  with the right of control which an employer has, need not be
decided.  But once it is accepted that he has such a right there is no reason why his
added presence in the vehicle should be treated as a sine qua non for vicarious
liability.  Owners have in the past been held vicariously liable when, although
present in the vehicle, they were clearly incapable of exercising a “power of
control”, viz when they were drunk. (See for eg  Manickum v Lupke 1963 (2) SA
344 (N),   Du Plessis v Faul en ‘n Ander 1985 (2) SA 85 (NK).)  If these cases are

to be regarded as correctly decided and the mere presence of the owner is sufficient
to satisfy the requirement, then it would serve no purpose. If, on the other hand,
they are to be regarded as wrongly decided, the question that arises is in what
circumstances would the requirement be met. In other words, where in the vehicle
would the owner have to sit and what would he have to be doing in order to incur
vicarious liability?   (See Cooper loc cit.) Would it be sufficient if he were asleep
or reading a newspaper on the back seat? Once again, if it were, the requirement
would serve no purpose. If it were not, it would be anomalous to hold vicariously
liable the alert owner sitting in the front passenger seat who is unable to prevent an
accident caused by a moment’s inadvertence on the part of a competent driver. No
doubt the presence or absence of the owner in the vehicle, depending on the
circumstances, may be an important consideration when deciding the issue of
vicarious liability, but it is quite another thing to regard his presence (and a
concomitant power of control) as an essential requirement. To do so would,

admittedly, render the inquiry simpler and the answer more predictable, but that in
itself is no reason for adopting a hard and fast rule which is likely to produce
anomalous results (cf Midway Two Engineering & Construction Services v
Transnet Bpk 1998 (3) SA 17 (A) at 23 H - J). It is interesting to note that although
English law proceeds on a somewhat different basis, there is no requirement that
the owner must be present in the vehicle in order to incur vicarious liability.
(Ormrod and Another v Crossville Motor Services and Another [1953] 2 All ER
753 (CA).)   In the United States of America vicarious liability has been imposed
on owners who were not passengers both by way of statute and the development
of judicial theories such as the “joint enterprise” and “family purpose” doctrines.
(See Prosser Wade Schwartz Cases and Materials on Torts 7 ed at 696 et seq.)
[14] The other requirement referred to by Fannin J in the Mavaneni case,
supra, is that the vehicle must be driven on behalf of the owner. Without this, the
position of the driver could not approximate that of an employee, nor would he be

about the business of the owner. It is now well established that it is sufficient if the
journey is partly for the purposes of the driver and partly for those of the owner.
However, the interest of the owner must not be merely peripheral. (Carter & Co
(Pty) Ltd v McDonald 1955 (1) SA 202 (A) at 209 G - H). It would not be
sufficient if the owner came along for the ride and to keep the driver company (see
for eg Cassiem and Another v Rohleder and Others 1962 (4) SA 739 (C)).
[15] As important as the requirements identified in the Mavaneni case may
be, they are, I think, in reality no more than indicia and should be recognised as
such.   Ultimately the true inquiry is whether the relationship between the owner and
the driver and the interest of the former in the driving of the latter is sufficiently
analogous to the case of an employee driving in the course and scope of his
employment to justify the negligence of the driver being attributed to the owner. The
answer will depend on not only a careful analysis of the facts of each case but also
on considerations of policy.   As I have indicated, depending upon the

circumstances the presence or otherwise of the owner in the vehicle may prove to
be a determinative factor, but not necessarily so.
[16] Against this background it becomes necessary to revert to the facts.
It appears that Gerrit completed his schooling at the end of 1996 but failed the
examination in one of his subjects which he proposed rewriting. At the time of the
accident he was assisting his father, the respondent, in the garage business by doing
what the latter described as “odd jobs”, but he was not being paid. (By the time the
trial was held in February 1998 circumstances had changed and Gerrit was officially
an employee of the business.) The odd jobs consisted in the main of driving the
vehicle involved in the accident on various errands. An unqualified mechanic
employed by the respondent had no driver’s license. Typically, if he was required
to perform work at some place other than at the garage, Gerrit would drive him
there and back. He would also drive on his own to collect or deliver things when
required. The banking for the business was normally done on a Monday. For this

purpose it was necessary to travel by motor car to Messina and back. The banking
was frequently, but not always, done by Gerrit. In cross-examination the
respondent readily conceded that he regarded himself as having the right to dictate
the manner in which Gerrit was to drive the vehicle. Gerrit, in turn, acknowledged
that if his father instructed him when, where and how to drive he would obey those
instructions.
[17] It is quite clear that on the day in question the journey undertaken by
Gerrit was at least partly for the purposes of the respondent, viz to do the banking.
It is also clear that this was not an isolated incident; Gerrit regularly drove the
respondent’s vehicle on the latter’s behalf and about his business. The evidence
establishes, too, that by reason of the respondent’s interest in the motor vehicle and
the relationship between father and son, the former retained the right to control the
manner in which the vehicle was to be driven by the latter. Viewed cumulatively, all
these factors establish that the circumstances of Gerrit’s driving at the time of the

accident were  such as to render his position closely analogous to that of an
employee driving in the course and scope of his employment, and, in my judgment,
sufficiently so to justify his negligence being attributed to the respondent.
[18] It follows that in my view the respondent’s damages in the agreed sum
of R265 350 had to be reduced by 25 per cent in accordance with the provisions
of s 1 of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956. The Court a quo
accordingly ought to  have  granted  judgment in  favour of  the  respondent  for
the lesser sum of  R199 012,50, together with costs of suit.
[19] In this Court the appellant sought no more than to establish that the
amount awarded to the respondent had to be reduced by reason of Gerrit’s
contributory negligence. In this it was successful and it is accordingly entitled to its
costs of appeal.
[20] The following order is made:
(a)
The appeal succeeds with costs.

(b)
The order of the Court a quo is set aside and the following is
substituted:
“Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff for R199 012,50
together with costs of suit.”
D G   SCOTT
JUDGE OF APPEAL
CONCUR:
MELUNSKY
AJA
BRAND
AJA