Flynote: Vicarious liability Liability of employer for acts of employee whether the – – employees of the defendant acted wrongfully and unlawfully when they assaulted plaintiff’s person Defendant established the physical interference was justified. – Evidence mutual destructive evidence where the evidence of the parties is mutually – – destructive court must decide as to which version to belief Court found version of – defendant more probable Summary: Plaintiff instituted delictual trial for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life against the defendant. The plaintiff instituted the action against the defendant based on vicarious liability. The plaintiff averred that the two employees of the defendant acted within the course and scope of their employment and that they unlawfully assaulted the plaintiff whom as a result of the assault sustained physical injuries. The defendant pleaded that the action of the defendant’s two employees were justified. the court that the evidence of the plaintiff is improbable due inconsistencies Held, held, witnesses testifying on behalf of the plaintiff. Held, the court further held, that the approach that a court must adopt to determine which version is more probable is to start from the undisputed facts which both sides accept, and add to them such other facts as seem very likely to be true. ORDER The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, costs consisting of one instructing and one instructed counsel.
Flynote: Vicarious liability – Liability of employer for acts of employee – whether the employees of the defendant acted wrongfully and unlawfully when they assaulted plaintiff’s person – Defendant established the physical interference was justified. Evidence – mutual destructive evidence – where the evidence of the parties is mutually destructive court must decide as to which version to belief – Court found version of defendant more probable Summary: Plaintiff instituted delictual for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life against the defendant. The plaintiff instituted the action against the defendant based on vicarious liability. The plaintiff averred that the two employees of the defendant acted within the course and scope of their employment and that they unlawfully assaulted the plaintiff whom as a result of the assault sustained physical injuries. The defendant pleaded that the action of the defendant’s two employees were justified. Held, the court held, that the evidence of the plaintiff is improbable due inconsistencies witnesses testifying on behalf of the plaintiff. Held, the court further held, that the approach that a court must adopt to determine which version is more probable is to start from the undisputed facts which both sides accept, and add to them such other facts as seem very likely to be true. ORDER The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, costs consisting of one instructing and one instructed counsel. trial
Sadok%20v%20Eagle%20Night%20Watch%20Security%20CC%20(I%202642-2015)%20[2018]%20NAHCMD%2018%20(08%20February%202018).docx