Wrongfulness and legal causation as separate elements of a delict : confusion reigns : regspraak

A delict is a complex juristic fact which is traditionally divided into a number of different elements: the act, wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage (see Neethling and Potgieter Neethling-Potgieter-Visser Law of Delict (2010) 4; Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 1 SA 461 (SCA) 468; Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security (Women's Legal Centre Trust, as amicus curiae) 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA) 395; Truter v Deysel 2006 4 SA 168 (SCA) 174; Mntambo v Road Accident Fund 2008 1 SA 313 (W) 318; First National Bank of South Africa Ltd v Duvenhage 2006 5 SA 319 (SCA) 320-321; Black v Joffe 2007 3 SA 171 (C) 183; McCarthy Ltd t/a Budget Rent A Car v Sunset Beach Trading 300 CC t/a Harvey World Travel 2012 6 SA 551 (GNP) 556 559; Road Accident Fund v Krawa 2012 2 SA 346 (ECG) 363). These elements should be clearly distinguished as far as is realistic and possible, since their classification is based on considerations of fairness, efficacy and logic, which should not be disregarded lightly. If, for example, a component of wrongfulness is dragged into legal causation without due consideration, one could be caught up in a confusing net of ideas (see Potgieter and Van Rensburg "Die toerekening van gevolge aan 'n delikspleger" 1977 THRHR 379 382). This danger applies particularly to wrongfulness and legal causation and has been brought to the fore in the two cases under discussion.