REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case number: 332/04
Reportable

In the matter between:

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                          APPELLANT

and

MXOLISI RICHARD MTATI
obo ZUKHANYE MTATI                                       RESPONDENT

CORAM:
MPATI DP, ZULMAN, FARLAM, VAN
HEERDEN et JAFTA JJA

HEARD:

17 MAY 2005

DELIVERED:
1 JUNE 2005

SUMMARY:
Delict – pregnant woman injured in motor collision – child
subsequently born with brain damage resulting from collision – whether child has action
against RAF.
________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________
FARLAM JA

INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an appeal against the dismissal by Froneman J,
sitting in the East London Circuit Local Division of the High Court,
of a special plea raised by the appellant against a claim brought by
the respondent, in his capacity as father and natural guardian of
his minor daughter, Zukhanye Mtati, in terms of Article 40 of the
Agreement set out in the schedule to the Multilateral Motor Vehicle
Accidents Fund Act, 93 of 1989. (References in what follows to
‘the Act’ are references to Act 93 of 1989.)
PLEADINGS
[2] In his particulars of claim the respondent claimed an amount
of R1 365 580 from the appellant, alleging that a collision took
place on 20 December 1989 in East London between a motor
vehicle, which was being negligently driven at the time by one
Dlalo, and the respondent’s wife, who was a pedestrian. As a
result of the collision it was alleged, the respondent’s wife, who
was then pregnant with Zukhanye, sustained serious bodily
injuries. Zukhanye was born some five and a half months after the
collision. It is alleged in the particulars of claim that she has brain
damage and is mentally retarded and that this brain damage and
mental retardation arose out of the injuries sustained by her
mother as a result of the collision.

[3] The appellant’s special plea rests on two bases.
[4] The first is what is contended to be the proper construction of
Article 40 of the Agreement, which reads as follows:
‘The MMF [ie, the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund, the predecessor
of the appellant] or its appointed agent, as the case may be, shall subject to
the provisions of this Agreement, be obliged to compensate any person
whomsoever (in this Agreement called the third party) for any loss or damage
which the third party has suffered as a result of –
(a)
any bodily injury to himself;
(b)
the death of or any bodily injury to any person,
in either case caused by or arising out of the driving of a motor vehicle by any
person whomsoever at any place within the area of jurisdiction of the
Members of the MMF, if the injury or death is due to the negligence or other
unlawful act of the person who drove the motor vehicle (in this Agreement
called the driver) or of the owner of the motor vehicle or his servant in the
execution of his duty.’
The appellant contends in its special plea that, as the respondent’s
minor child was at the time of the collision a foetus in utero, she
was not, on what is called a ‘proper construction’ of Article 40, a
‘person’ entitled to compensation.
[5] The second basis for the special plea is an averment that ‘a
foetus in utero is not in law regarded as a person and in the
circumstances the insured driver cannot be said to have owed a
duty of care to ZUKHANYE.’

EARLIER DECISION ON ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE
[6] Some of the legal issues which arise in this case came
before this court for decision in August 1963 when an appeal from
the judgment of Hiemstra J in Pinchin and Another NO v Santam
Insurance Co Ltd 1963 (2) SA 254 (W) was argued. This court was
satisfied that Hiemstra J had correctly decided that the plaintiffs in
the case before him had not succeeded in proving that the injuries
which the mother sustained in the collision which gave rise to that
case had caused cerebral palsy from which her child born
subsequent to the collision was suffering. It was thus unnecessary
for this court to decide whether Hiemstra J was right in holding that
a child has an action in our law to recover damages for pre-natal
injuries. See Pinchin and Another NO v Santam Insurance Co Ltd
1963 (4) SA 666 (A). Hiemstra J’s judgment in Pinchin’s case has
been quoted with approval in judgments in Australia (see Watt v
Rama [1972] VR 353 (FC), a decision of the Supreme Court of
Victoria, at 360), and in England (see Burton v Islington Health
Authority; de Martell v Merton and Sutton Health Authority  [1992]
3 All ER 833 (CA) at 840f-g). It has also been discussed in leading
textbooks published in Australia (see Fleming The Law of Torts 9
ed p 182) and England (see Charlesworth and Percy on
Negligence 10 ed p 88). Most of the legal review articles in which it

has been discussed are listed in what amounts to a monograph on
the legal issues arising for decision in this case, published as a
footnote (footnote 15 on pp 33 to 38, presumably the longest
footnote in South African legal history) in Boberg’s Law of Persons
and the Family 2 ed. In an earlier footnote (footnote 12 at pp 32-
33) it is pointed out that the problem arising for consideration in
this case is an international one and reference is made to ‘the vast
literature on this vexing subject’. Two contributions are singled out
for particular mention, the article by Sir Percy Winfield ‘The Unborn
Child’ published in (1942) 8 Cambridge LJ 76 and the dissertation
by David A Gordon SC ‘The Unborn Plaintiff’ published in (1965)
12 J of Forensic Medicine 111 and 152, (1966) 13 J of Forensic
Medicine 23 (an abridged version of this dissertation, published in
(1965) 63 Mich L Rev 579, was cited in Watt v Rama supra at
358). To the extensive list of writings on the topic listed in the
second edition of Boberg I wish merely to add references to
articles by PA Lovell and RH Griffith-Jones (1974) 90 LQR 531
and Professor Peter F Cane  (1977) 51 Australian LJ 704; the
doctoral dissertations by PC Smit Die Posisie van die Ongeborene
in die Suid Afrikaanse Reg met Besondere Aandag aan die
Nasciturus-Leerstuk (1976, University of the Orange Free State)
and PJJ Olivier Legal Fictions: an Analysis and Evaluation (1973,

University of Leiden) pp 119-123 and 153-4; the translated
materials collected and annotated by Sir Basil Markesinis in A
Comparative Introduction to the German Law of Torts 3 ed pp 39-
40 and 130-142, and the annotation on ‘Liability for Pre-Natal
Injuries’ published in 40 ALR 3ed pp 1222 et seq.
[7] In concluding that a child has an action for injuries sustained
while a foetus, Hiemstra J applied the so-called nasciturus fiction
derived from Roman law to the effect that an unborn child, if
subsequently born alive, is considered as already in existence
whenever its own advantage is concerned (see, eg, Digest 1.5.7),
holding that this rule not only applied to questions of succession
and status but could also be extended to the law of delict. In
coming to this conclusion he strongly relied inter alia on Montreal
Tramways Co v Léveillé (1933) 4 DLR 337 (SCC), a decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada in an appeal from Quebec, and the
article by Sir Percy Winfield to which I have already referred.
[8] The ratio of his judgment on the point presently at issue
appears at 260 A-C, as follows:
‘I hold that a child does have an action to recover damages for pre-natal
injuries. This rule is based on the rule of the Roman law, received into our
law, that an unborn child, if subsequently born alive, is deemed to have all the
rights of a born child, whenever this is to its advantage. There is apparently no

reason to limit this rule to the law of property and to exclude it from the law of
delict.’
[9] The Pinchin case was an action brought under s 11 of the
Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 29 of 1942 which, as far as was
material, provided that a registered insurance company (such as
the defendant in that case) had to compensate
‘any person whatsoever (in this section called the third party) for any loss or
damage which the third party has suffered as a result of
(a)
any bodily injury to himself;
(b)
the death of or any bodily injury to any person,
in either case caused by or arising out of the driving of the insured vehicle …’
(As can be seen this section was in pari materia with Article 40 of
the MMF Agreement.)
[10] Having pointed out (at 256A) that the word ‘person’ was not
defined, Hiemstra J said that it had therefore to bear ‘its ordinary
common law meaning’. He continued:
‘Whether the foetus is a “person” or not, seems to me to be irrelevant if the
legal fiction applies that it is to be regarded as if it is already born whenever
this should be to its advantage.’
He accordingly held that the plaintiff’s minor son had an action
under s 11 of Act 29 of 1942.

JUDGMENT IN COURT A QUO
[11] In his judgment in the court a quo Froneman J accepted that
the Pinchin decision was correct and that, as he put it:
‘ … the Act and the common law must therefore be approached in the context
of the qualified principle set out above, namely to regard, when appropriate, a
foetus as a person when upon birth it is to his or her advantage. The real and
difficult question is to determine when the circumstances are appropriate and
when they are not.’
[12] The learned judge held that it was appropriate to apply the
nasciturus rule in this case. Among the factors which led him to
this conclusion was the fact that Act 93 of 1989 was
‘… social legislation aimed at the widest possible protection and
compensation against loss and damages for the negligent driving of a motor
vehicle (compare SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Pretorius 1998 (2) 656 (SCA),
659I-660D). To a large extent it represents … an embodiment of the common
law actions relating to damages for bodily injury and loss of support caused by
or arising from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle (Evins v Shield
Insurance Co Ltd [1980 (2) SA 814 (A)], 841E).’
[13] He held that a duty of care could be owed to a foetus and
that there was no substance in the argument raised on behalf of
the present appellant that a finding on this point in favour of the
respondent would, to use the familiar cliché, ‘open the flood gates
of litigation’.

[14] Earlier in his judgment the learned judge dealt with a
submission advanced by counsel for the appellant, who took as his
starting point what was called the ‘ordinary grammatical meaning’
of the word ‘person’, viz ‘a human being’ as distinguished,
amongst other things, from a stillborn child, an unborn child or a
foetus. For this submission counsel had relied on the decision of
this court in Van Heerden and Another v Joubert NO and Others
1994 (4) SA 793 (A) in which it was held that the meaning of the
word ‘person’ as used in the Inquests Act 58 of 1959 does not
include a stillborn baby, with the result that an inquest into the
death of a stillborn baby cannot be held under the provisions of the
Act.
[15] Froneman J rejected this submission, saying that the
‘indeterminacy of meaning is increasingly recognized in our law (compare, for
example, the remarks of Kentridge AJ in S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA
642 (CC), paras 17-18), and was also implicitly recognized by FH Grosskopf
JA in Van Heerden’s case, above. In that case he starts his whole discussion
of the proper meaning of the word “person” by saying that the jurisdictional
issue in dispute in Van Heerden “depends on the meaning of the word
‘person’ in the context (my emphasis) of the Act [the Inquests Act 58 of
1959]”. Context is thus all (Jaga v Donges NO and Another 1950 (4) SA 653
(A), 662; Aetna Insurance Co v Minister of Justice 1960 (3) SA 273 (A), 284).

It logically precedes, or, perhaps more accurately, determines, the question
whether the meaning of a word is unambiguous or not.’
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
[16] Before us counsel for the appellant submitted that, in
dismissing the special plea, the court a quo erred in interpreting
the Act in its context, in the process paying insufficient regard to
what counsel called the ‘ordinary grammatical meaning’ of the
word ‘person’ as well as accepted interpretations of the word
‘person’ in the context of other statutes. In this regard counsel
referred to Van Heerden’s case, supra, at 796-798, Christian
Lawyers Association of South Africa v The Minister of Health and
Others 1998 (4) SA 1113 (T) at 1117F-1118F, Christian League of
Southern Africa v Rall 1981 (2) SA 821 (O) at 929 et seq and
Friedman v Glicksman 1996 (1) SA 1134 (W) at 1140G.
[17] It was further contended that in extending the common law,
as counsel submitted the court a quo had done, by finding that the
word ‘person’ in the Act included a foetus in utero, it had failed to
consider the effect of such extension on the law of delict in
general. In this regard counsel repeated the ‘floodgates’ argument
which had not impressed the court a quo. In elaborating this
submission counsel referred to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil
Liability) Act 1976 of the United Kingdom, which was based on the

recommendations of the English Law Commission published in its
Report on Injuries to Unborn Children Law Com. No. 60, Cmnd
5709 (1974). He contended that the UK Act takes due account of
what he called ‘the potential difficulties and inequities that could
result from an uncontrolled right to claim damages sustained in
utero’. In particular, he pointed out, the UK Act, in s 1(1), provides
that a child born disabled as a result of an occurrence before his or
her birth which affected either parent’s ability to have a normal
healthy child, or affected the mother during her pregnancy, or
affected her or the child in the course of his or her birth, so that the
child is born with disabilities which would not otherwise have been
present, will have an action against a person answerable in
respect of the occurrence other than the child’s own mother.
Section 2 of the UK Act provides that, in certain circumstances,
there will also be an action against the child’s mother if the child’s
disabilities arose from injuries sustained through, eg, the negligent
driving of a motor vehicle by the mother. (The reason for this
exception is that in such a case a statutory third party insurer will
be liable to satisfy any judgment the child may succeed in
obtaining against the mother, so that the exception is more
apparent than real.)

[18] Counsel contended that the courts should accordingly leave
the extension of the common law to provide a remedy for children
who sustain pre-natal injuries to the legislature which, in framing a
suitable remedy, will be able in a way the courts cannot, to qualify
the remedy provided so that, for example, it will not lead to a
situation where children are able to sue their own mothers in
respect of injuries they sustained while still in the womb.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
[19] In arguing that the order made by the court a quo could not
be faulted, counsel for the respondent submitted that Froneman J
was correct in following the judgment in the Pinchin case and
applying the nasciturus rule to the facts of this case. In the
alternative he submitted that the appellant’s argument contained
implied propositions that compensation is only payable in terms of
Article 40 in circumstances where the negligent driving (to confine
the argument to the facts of this case) and the injuries suffered by
Zukhanye occurred at the same time, and that she could not be
compensated in this case for the injuries she sustained because
she was not a person at the time when the negligent driving took
place and when her mother sustained the injuries which led in turn
to Zukhanye’s injuries. According to counsel, these propositions
were unsound and contrary to principle.

[20] In this regard counsel relied on views expressed by the late
Professor WA Joubert who, in a note on the Pinchin case
published in (1963) 26 THR-HR 295, expressed the view that the
solution to the legal  problems in the Pinchin case was to be found
in the ordinary principles of liability for delict, without having to
have recourse to an artificial extension of the nasciturus rule.
Joubert stated that the minor’s claim was based on the damage
he or she had suffered not as a foetus but as a living born person,
as persona iuris. The fact that the act that caused the damage, in
this case the negligent driving of the vehicle which collided with the
child’s mother, had happened before the birth was irrelevant. To
illustrate his point he gave several examples, including the
following: a person is injured by the explosion of a timebomb
placed in a room before he was born. Obviously he would have a
claim even though he was not born when the act which caused the
damage took place. In support of his views he referred to a
decision of the Federal Supreme Court in West Germany, reported
in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1953, I 418. In this case, an
English translation of which (by Kurt Lipstein) is given in
Markesinis op cit 130-133, the plaintiff child, who was born with
congenital syphilis, sued the hospital at which her mother had,
before the plaintiff was conceived, received a blood transfusion as

a result of which she contracted syphilis. The plaintiff’s claim
against the hospital was based on s 823 I of the BGB, which
provides as follows:
‘A person who, wilfully or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health,
freedom, property or other right of another is bound to compensate him for
any damage arising therefrom.’ (The translation is taken from Von
Mehren and Gordley The Civil Law System 2ed p 557.)
The hospital contended that s 823 I of the BGB did not apply
‘because at the time when the act causing damage occurred, the
plaintiff had not even been conceived’.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying (op cit
133):
‘It is not possible … to agree with the appellant who argues that s 823 I
presupposes the existence of a physical person and that it cannot therefore
be applied to injuries affecting those who were not yet conceived when the
tort was committed, since in such a case “another person” in the meaning of
s 823 I BGB does not exist … [T]he plaintiff was conceived in the body of the
mother who suffered from syphilis and developed in it as a human being
affected by syphilis by absorbing the illness. This would not have happened
without the tortious act or omission of the defendant; in short without it she
would not have become a person suffering from syphilis.
The object of the argument is thus not damage to a foetus or to an unborn
child, but the damage which the plaintiff has suffered by the fact that she was
born a sick person affected by syphilis. As stated before, her damage is

connected by a link of adequate causation with the infection with syphilis of
her mother by the defendant. This damage was suffered by the plaintiff when
she was born and constituted an injury to her health. Thus the conditions of
s 823 I BGB exist for allowing the claim.’
[21] Joubert pointed out that similar problems arise in our law as
regards the dependants’ action where, eg, a man is killed by the
negligent act of another at a time when his wife is pregnant. Her
child will have a claim for loss of support when he or she is born. In
this case also, he said, referring to the leading case of Chisholm v
East Rand Proprietary Mines Ltd 1909 TH 297, the nasciturus rule
had unnecessarily been invoked.
DISCUSSION
[22] The first question to be decided is whether Zukhanye has a
claim under Article 40 against the appellant for the damages
flowing from the disabilities from which she is suffering.
[23] I do not think it is possible to decide this question separately
from the question as to whether in our law she has an action for
ante-natal injuries. That this must be so flows from the fact that the
remedy created by Article 40 is the counterpart of and indeed the
substitute for the common law actions relating to damages for
bodily injury and loss of support caused by or arising from the
negligent driving of motor vehicles. Parliament could never have

intended Zukhanye, if the common law grants a child an action for
ante-natal injuries, to have to sue the driver of the vehicle which
collided with her mother.
[24] The next point to be made is that it would be intolerable if our
law did not grant such an action. On this part of the case I can do
no better than to quote what was said by Lamont J in the Montreal
Tramways case supra at 345, viz:
‘If a child after birth has no right of action for pre-natal injuries, we have a
wrong inflicted for which there is no remedy, for, although the father may be
entitled to compensation for the loss he has incurred and the mother for what
she has suffered, yet there is a residuum of injury for which compensation
cannot be had save at the suit of the child. If a right of action be denied to the
child it will be compelled, without any fault on its part, to go through life
carrying the seal of another’s fault and bearing a very heavy burden of
infirmity and inconvenience without any compensation therefor. To my mind it
is but natural justice that a child, if born alive and viable, should be allowed to
maintain an action in the courts for injuries wrongfully committed upon its
person while in the womb of its mother.’
[25] The Montreal Tramways case was very influential in causing
American courts, which had previously denied an action for pre-
natal injuries, to change their stance on the matter. It was, for
example, cited with approval in Bonbrest v Kotz 65 F Supp 138
(DDC 1946), the first case in which it was held in the United States

(after a long line of cases from all over the United States, starting
with Dietrich v Northampton (1884) 138 Mass 14, 52 Am Rep 242,
a judgment of Oliver Wendell Holmes J, going the other way) that
there was an action, at least as far as concerned a claim for
injuries to a viable unborn child, brought by the child after its birth.
This led to what Prosser (Law of Torts 4 ed p 368) called ‘the most
spectacular abrupt reversal of a well-settled rule in the whole
history of the law of torts’. (Indeed some American courts go
further and even allow damages to be recovered by the estate of a
stillborn child.)
[26] The passage I have quoted from Lamont J’s judgment in the
Montreal Tramways case was also cited by Hiemstra J in Pinchin
supra at 257A-B, by Gillard J in Watt v Rama supra at 363-4 and
by Dillon LJ in Burton’s case at 839b-d.
[27] The more difficult question is whether we should allow such
an action by using the nasciturus rule or by using what Professor
Joubert called the ordinary principles of the law of delict.
[28] The judges in the Supreme Court of Canada who decided
the Montreal Tramways case were also divided on the legal
principles to be applied so as to allow a child to sue after birth for
pre-natal injuries. Lamont J, who delivered his judgment on behalf
of himself and Rinfret and Crocket JJ, relied on the nasciturus rule.

Cannon J held that it was not necessary to consider the rights of
the child while in its mother’s womb, between the time of
conception and birth. His judgment was delivered in French. The
following summary of  his reasoning is taken from the judgment
delivered by Winneke CJ and Pape J in Watt v Rama supra at 357:
‘His view was that the cause of action arose when the damage was suffered
and not when the wrongful act was committed. Injury was one of the three
essential elements of responsibility, and without injury, no action would lie. He
thought that in principle the plaintiff’s right to compensation came into
existence only when she was born with the bodily disability from which she
suffered. It was only after birth that she suffered the injury, and it was then
that her rights were encroached upon and she commenced to have rights. It
could be said that her rights were born together with her; and from birth with
her guardian’s help she could bring the action and endeavour to show that the
injury from which she suffered was caused prior to her birth through the fault
of the defendant. He thought it unnecessary to discuss the maxims of the civil
law or the application of the Civil Code of Quebec. It was not a question of the
right the child had after conception, but of the right to compensation which
commenced when she was born.’
[29] This approach commended itself to all three judges in Watt v
Rama, although Gillard J also, in the alternative, suggested (at
374-7) that the other approach based on the nasciturus rule, which
for some purposes at least had been received into the law of
England, might be adopted. He stated, however (at 377 lines 29-

30), that it was not necessary ‘to form any concluded opinion’ on
the point. Cane (op cit 720) found the main line of reasoning in
Watt v Rama to be ‘rather technical’ and said that ‘its detailed
operation, like the scheme of the [UK] Act presents certain
difficulties’. He preferred the alternative reasoning of Gillard J,
which involves treating the unborn child as having already been
born at the date of its injuries.
[30] Similar
views
have
been
expressed
by
academic
commentators in South Africa, notably Professor PQR Boberg,
whose views were first set out in a note he wrote on Pinchin’s case
in the 1963 volume of the Annual Survey of South African Law at
pp 216-219. At 218 he summarised Joubert’s comments on the
case and continued:
‘The difficulty about Joubert’s analysis is that it does not explain the process
by which the conclusion is reached that the delict has been committed against
a living child only after its birth. Delictual liability does not stem from damage
alone: it only arises when such damage has been caused by an invasion of
legal rights, or wrongful act. The only act to which the injuries presently
involved can be traced was one committed before the child’s birth. Against
whom was it wrongful: the child, the foetus, or, if before conception, what? As
Joubert denies the relevance of the nasciturus rule, he would, presumably,
say that the act was wrongful against the child. To equate this situation, as he
does, with the example of the time-bomb, is, however, not permissible. When

the bomb is placed in the room no damage is suffered and hence no delict is
committed. It is only when the bomb explodes that a delict is committed, and
by then the child has been born. Thus if the “bomber” were to repent of his
deed and remove the bomb before it exploded there would be no liability. On
the other hand, pre-natal injuries are already sustained by the child in the
womb while not yet a legal person. No arrangement of circumstances has
taken place which only injures him upon his emergence into the world. Thus if
a delict has been committed at all, was it not committed against the unborn
child who was not at that stage a person?
Possibly Joubert’s answer would be that, as legal personality is essential to
an invasion of rights, the delict only arises when the rights are created, i.e. on
birth. But how does one escape the fact that the actual invasion took place
some time before, when there were no rights? It is submitted that the
recognition of an action for pre-natal injuries is logically impossible without the
conferment of legal rights, and hence legal personality, upon the unborn child,
as achieved by the nasciturus rule. (See the remarks of Greenberg J in
Stevenson N.O. v Transvaal Provincial Administration, 1934 TPD 80 at 85).’
[31] Part of the answer to this contention was, in my view, given
by Phillips J in the court a quo in  de Martell v Merton and Sutton
Health Authority [1992] 3 All ER 820 (QBD) when he said (at 832a-
b):
‘In law and in logic no damage can have been caused to the plaintiff before
the plaintiff existed. The damage was suffered by the plaintiff at the moment
that, in law, the plaintiff achieved personality and inherited the damaged body
for which the defendants (on the assumed facts) were responsible. The

events prior to birth were mere links in the chain of causation between the
defendants’ assumed lack of skill and care and the consequential damage to
the plaintiff.’
[32] Furthermore I do not find Boberg’s criticism of Joubert’s time-
bomb example particularly helpful. What if the bomb had gone off,
leaving a dangerous crater into which two people subsequently
fell? Each person would have an action only when he or she fell
and suffered damage, not before.1
[33] The nasciturus rule provides no solution to cases such as the
German case of the mother who was negligently infected with
syphilis before she conceived her child, who was subsequently
born with congenital syphilis. Such a case also, in my view, cries
out for a remedy and a theory which denies one should not be
accepted. 2
[34] Furthermore the application of the nasciturus rule led to what
was clearly, in my view, an unjust result in Stevenson NO v
Transvaal Provincial Administration, supra. In that case a man was
killed in consequence of what was alleged to be the negligence of
the Provincial Administration. More than six months after his death
the mother of his children, wishing to institute proceedings on
behalf of her children for loss of support, applied, inter alia, for

1 See also in this regard the useful discussion of the views of Professors Joubert and Boberg by Craig
Lind ‘Wrongful-Birth and Wrongful-Life Actions’ (1992) 109 SALJ 428 at 440-443.
2 See also Lind op cit 442-443.

condonation of her failure to institute the proceedings in the
prescribed period. It was held that, as action had not been
commenced within the period laid down in s 5 of the Roads
Amendment Ordinance 10 of 1931 (Transvaal), the application had
to fail, even in respect of a child born after his father’s death and
within the relevant period. Greenberg J, with whom Tindall AJP
and De Wet J concurred, said (at 85):
‘The question when  the cause of action matured depends firstly on the nature
of the claim. In Union Government v Lee (1927, A.D. at 222) it was held that
in a case of this kind the compensation claimable is due to third parties who
do not derive their rights through the deceased or from his estate, but from the
fact that they have been injured by the death of the deceased and that the
defendant is the person responsible for such death. I think it follows that these
rights can only accrue in favour of an entity who is a person either in fact or by
a fiction of law at the time when the act of the defendant complained of is
committed. According to Maasdorp’s Institutes of Cape Law, vol 1 p. 1 and the
authorities there cited, an unborn infant, provided it is afterwards actually
born, is sometimes by a legal fiction regarded as already born, in so far as
such presumption will be for its benefit. Mr Maisels sought to use this proviso
in support of his case and contended that it would not be for the benefit of the
minor concerned if it were presumed to have been born on the date of
conception, i.e., before the death of the deceased, and that the fiction should
not be invoked. But it appears to me that it is only by the aid of the fiction that
this minor has a cause of action at all. If at the date of respondent’s

negligence the minor was in existence neither as a living foetus that by a
fiction can be looked on as a person nor as a living person, then there is no
entity or persona in whose favour respondent could have incurred obligations
at that time. The appellant would therefore have claimed damages in respect
of this minor as well, immediately upon the death of the deceased. It may be
that if the child was still-born or if the foetus miscarried, no claim in respect of
this minor may have arisen. But on the date of its birth the claim for future
maintenance based on its expectation of life would have lain and there seems
no difference in principle between such a claim and a claim in respect of an
unborn but living foetus. In the former case there is the possibility that the
living child may not live another day, in the latter that a like fate may befall a
living foetus. I think therefore that this point also fails and that the appeal must
be dismissed with costs.’
[35] The conclusion to which the court came cannot in my view
be faulted if it is correct, as Greenberg J said, that ‘it is only by the
aid of the fiction that this minor has a cause of action at all’. I do
not, however, think that that statement is correct. On the ordinary
principles of the law of delict, unlawfulness and damages must not
be conflated. As Cannon J said in Montreal Tramways, each is a
separate element for delictual liability. No cause of action arose, in
my view, until Stevenson’s posthumous child was born. The
application should accordingly have been granted.
[36] Although it was averred in the special plea that the insured
driver did not owe a duty of care to Zukhanye,  counsel for the

appellant (very correctly, in my view) addressed no submission to
us on this point. In our law, for the element of wrongfulness to be
present, there has to be a breach of a legal duty (a term to be
preferred to the expression derived from English law ‘duty of care’,
the use of which can lead to confusion: see Knop v Johannesburg
City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A) at 27E)).
[37] The assertion that the driver did not owe Zukhanye a legal
duty because she had not yet been born must clearly be rejected
in the circumstances. In my opinion the point was well answered
by Fraser J of the High Court of Ontario in Duval v Seguin (1972)
26 DLR (3d) 418 in a passage cited with approval by Dillon LJ in
the Burton case at 842c-d, as follows:
‘Ann’s mother [Ann was the child en ventre sa mère at the time of the
collision] was plainly one of a class within the area of foreseeable risk and one
to whom the defendants therefore owed a duty. Was Ann any the less so? I
think not. Procreation is normal and necessary for the preservation of the
race. If a driver drives on a highway without due care for other users it is
foreseeable that some of the other users of the highway will be pregnant
women and that a child en ventre sa mère may be injured. Such a child
therefore falls well within the area of potential danger which the driver is
required to foresee and take reasonable care to avoid.’
[38] Finally I wish to say something about the floodgates
argument. It is certainly true that the judgment in Bonbrest v Kotz

supra, which initiated the reversal in attitude of the American
courts on the point, may be said to have opened the floodgates of
litigation regarding pre-natal injuries, leading to claims on the part
of the estates of stillborn infants and infants who died shortly after
being born (details can be found in the annotation in 40 ALR 3d
1222 to which I have referred above) and also to claims by
children against their mothers for the infliction of pre-natal injuries
(a topic dealt with in an annotation published in 78 ALR 4th 1082),
a problem which, as we have seen, is addressed in the UK Act.
[39] Problems of that kind are not likely to arise in our law for
several reasons. First, the right of a child to sue for pre-natal
injuries recognised in this judgment is expressly based on the
holding that the right of action only became complete when the
child was born alive. Secondly, a claim of a pre-natally injured child
who dies shortly after birth lapses unless action has already been
instituted and the proceedings have already reached the stage of
litis contestatio in the case of the actio injuriarum and the action for
pain and suffering (see Hoffa v SA Mutual Fire and General
Insurance Co Ltd 1965 (2) SA 944(C) at 950 and 955 and
Potgieter v Sustein (Edms) Bpk 1990 (2) SA 15 (T) at 21-22).
Thirdly, any claim the child may have for loss of expectation of life
will be regarded as part of his or her claim for loss of amenities

(Corbett The Quantum of Damages in Bodily and Fatal Injury
Cases Vol 1 4 ed by JJ Gauntlett SC, p 45) and will thus lapse on
the child’s death and the child will have no claim for loss of income
during the ‘lost years’: see Lockhat’s Estate v North British &
Mercantile Insurance Co Ltd 1959 (3) SA 295 (A).
[40] As far as a possible claim against a child’s mother for pre-
natal injuries is concerned, such a claim will only lie if and to the
extent that an enforceable legal duty on the part of the mother
towards her child is recognised, a matter on which no opinion need
be expressed at this stage.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
[41] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the special plea was
correctly dismissed by the court a quo and the appeal must fail.
The following order is made:
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those occasioned by
the employment of two counsel.
…………….
IG FARLAM
JUDGE OF APPEAL
CONCURRING

MPATI

DP
ZULMAN
JA
VAN HEERDEN JA
JAFTA

JA