EDCC 315 Delictual liability by Annamagriet De Wet

Jancu P 34482016

2022-05-26 09:48:11 UTC

Yes both physical and emotional:
Physical- two broken bones, an arm, a blind eye and potential brain damage
Emotional- therapy, shock of both parents and student.

Mpho

2022-05-26 09:50:13 UTC

physical damage- his bones were broken, became blind in one eye, had brain damage

Jancu Posthumus 34482016

2022-05-26 09:50:21 UTC

the idea of it being a "willfull" human act is debatable due to major and minor ideas...and also depending from person to person but in my opinion depending on person to person it is a multiple related answer.

L Bierman 28465784

2022-05-26 09:50:42 UTC

Yes Damage occurred. Lumi had damage in his eyes causing blindness. Also amputation of fingers. He also had damage to his possessions and clothing.

Mosikare M. 31787886

2022-05-26 09:51:41 UTC

Yes Physical harm occurred- broken bones and became blind in one eye

Amanda and Melene

2022-05-26 09:52:22 UTC

Physical and emotional damages to Lumi.
Damages to property of Lumi and School.
Lumi wil have a shortened life span.

Boitumelo

2022-05-26 09:52:52 UTC

Physical damage-the boy became blind on one eye, he had broken bones and the his brain was damaged.

L. Bierman

2022-05-26 09:52:55 UTC

Yes. The teacher left the donkeys unsupervised knowing there are many things in the specific area that could startle the donkeys.

Chandre P 35122315

2022-05-26 09:53:28 UTC

Yes the child suffered severe damage to his brain and legs as the doctors fear he will never be able to walk again and he has a blind eye

Eliana Phoni 34601023

2022-05-26 09:53:30 UTC

Lumi experienced both physical as well as emotional damage.
Emotional damage as he was dragged and had no control
physical= his body was probably bruised after that altercation

Mongikazi Booi 34780548

2022-05-26 09:53:42 UTC

Physical damage as his bones were broken, became blind in one eye and had brain damage.
Emotional damage- experienced shock, not only the learner but the parents as well.

K machai 34528768

2022-05-26 09:54:10 UTC

yes damage occurred, the learner had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand, and was blind and the worst part is that Lumi suffered brain damage.

Kelda Maitland 34583122

2022-05-26 09:54:12 UTC

Physical and psychological damage to the person
Disfigurement - Loss of fingers
Loss of health
Emotional shock
Loss of amenities of life
Pain and suffering

Kgothatso

2022-05-26 09:54:17 UTC

Yes there were damages sustained. Lumi suffered injuries, two broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingers and he suffered brain damage. Lumi's possible inability to walk can cause an emotional damage for him and his parents. The incident on its own can evoke negative emotions for everyone who was present at the fundraising event.

L. Bierman 28465784

2022-05-26 09:54:24 UTC

Yes. If the teacher had asked someone to take over his shift while he gets food, the situation could have been avoided.

Mpho

2022-05-26 09:54:33 UTC

if the teacher had asked someone else to watch the donkey it would have to ran away so i say that Yes

Amanda and Melene

2022-05-26 09:54:54 UTC

The teacher's action was not willful as the donkeys were frightned by a noise and not the teacher. Therefore the act was not willful.

Tanya v.d. Westhuizen

2022-05-26 09:55:43 UTC

Yes
Lumi experience severe physical harm and emotional trama do to the event, there was also damage done to the learners property.

L. Bierman 28465785

2022-05-26 09:56:21 UTC

Yes. The donkeys were in his care and it was his responsibility to put the donkeys in a pen or tie them to a post.

Nereze Niewenhuis 34248994

2022-05-26 09:56:34 UTC

There was harm done to lumi and her proporty. Danger is that the donkeys were left alone without thinking of what might scare them. Emotional and future damage were done to lumi

k machai 34528768

2022-05-26 09:56:56 UTC

yes, the teacher should have asked another teacher to look after the donkey, none of this would have happen.

Desiree 34643435

2022-05-26 09:57:00 UTC

Yes,
Pain and suffering
Disfigurement
Loss of health
Emotional shock
Shortened life expectancy

Esther 36579289

2022-05-26 09:57:07 UTC

there was a physical damage and emotional damage because learners were shocked and became scared.

Mosikare M. 31787886

2022-05-26 09:57:23 UTC

yes. the teacher acted out of free will to leave the donkeys, which they have reacted to the conduct of the human

Chandre Petersen

2022-05-26 09:57:29 UTC

The children who lit those firecrackers were the cause of the harm however, they did not cause this harm "willfully" as they did not know this would cause the donkeys to react this way.
The teacher leaving the donkey stall is also to be blame however, it was not done willfully as the teacher had no idea this would have happened

Kgothatso

2022-05-26 09:57:32 UTC

Yes there was a direct link between the act and the harm. The teacher could have asked someone to supervise the stall for a while while he gets his food to avoid this incident.

Amanda and Melene

2022-05-26 09:57:53 UTC

There is a link between the teacher leaving the donkeys unsupervised and Lumi getting hurt.

Kelda Maitland 34583122

2022-05-26 09:57:56 UTC

Yes the donkeys were left unsupervised and the donkeys were left to wonder around. The teacher was suppose to watch over the donkeys.

A. Molebatsi

2022-05-26 09:58:39 UTC

The child suffered severe injuries on the head and most body parts were broken. The child was damaged physical and psychological and was also in pain.

Esther 36579289

2022-05-26 09:58:49 UTC

the teacher could have made some arrangement and find a person to look after the donkeys while he go to get the food.

Mpho

2022-05-26 09:58:59 UTC

The teacher is at fault for leaving the donkey alone he was neglecting his duty at the moment.

The teacher left the donkeys alone without supervision but did not intend for someone to get hurt

2022-05-26 09:58:59 UTC

Desiree

2022-05-26 09:59:12 UTC

The teacher’s breach of careful supervision led to very serve physical and psychological suffering

Chandre Petersen

2022-05-26 09:59:20 UTC

There is a direct link, the teacher should have asked another teacher to look after the donkey stall while he left the stall to avoid this incident.

Eliana Phoni 34601023

2022-05-26 09:59:30 UTC

The educator leaving the animals unattended shows that his actions are the cause of what happened hence the act was wilful

Amanda and Melene

2022-05-26 09:59:37 UTC

Yes it is unlawful as the donkeys were his responsibility and he neglected them when he went to eat.

Eliana Phoni 34601023

2022-05-26 10:00:05 UTC

educator should have left the donkeys under supervision

Desiree

2022-05-26 10:00:31 UTC

If the teacher acted differently, the situation could have been prevented.

Amanda and Melene

2022-05-26 10:00:33 UTC

It was the teachers fault that the donkeys ran loose but it was not done intentionally.

Kelda Maitland 34583122

2022-05-26 10:00:43 UTC

Yes if the teacher supervised the donkeys or placed them in a enclosed area then the harm could have been prevented.

Nereze Niewenhuis 34248994

2022-05-26 10:01:05 UTC

The boys were the cause of the donkeys becoming scared, the teacher however should not have left the donkey without supervision

Desiree

2022-05-26 10:02:31 UTC

I don’t really think it was unlawful because the teacher himself did not contribute to the act, however, he could have asked another teacher to supervise on his behalf

A. Molebatsi

2022-05-26 10:02:41 UTC

I think the action was never intended to happen but the teacher could have asked someone to watch over the donkeys and I believe the learners didn't know that the fire crackers would frighten the donkeys.

Portia Mahlangu 33476756

2022-05-26 10:02:47 UTC

The damage was more physical since the bones and eyes got damaged, this will then have an effect on the long run on the incapabilities

unlawful= donkeys were his responsibility so he had to be responsible for them so but he leftthem unattended

2022-05-26 10:02:50 UTC

Eliana Phoni 34601023

Tanya v.d. Westhuizen

2022-05-26 10:03:18 UTC

I would say that it was not a willful act to harm the learner, but it was a willful act to leave the donkeys unattended. Do to the recklessness of the teacher leaving the donkeys alone the act occurred. The boys who frightened the donkeys did not wilfully frighten them, but they did wilfully let off the fire-crackers.

Nereze Niewenhuis 34248994

2022-05-26 10:03:49 UTC

The teacher should have kept in mind that the animals could get scared and thus he should have arranged that someone should take over before he left to ensure the safety of the animals and the people in the area

Mosikare M. 31787886

2022-05-26 10:04:06 UTC

Yes, the teacher had control over the situation and could have left someone in his place. he was put responsible for the donkeys

Kelda Maitland 34583122

2022-05-26 10:04:07 UTC

It was unlawful because the donkeys were suppose to be in his care and the learners needed to be supervised too.

The educator was at fault

2022-05-26 10:04:18 UTC

Eliana Phoni 34601023

Desiree

2022-05-26 10:04:49 UTC

The teacher was very negligent. And he could have made sure that everything was under control before he left , if he had no one to help with supervision.
The entire school is at fault , how can the bring a wild animal on school grounds

Kelda Maitland 34583122

2022-05-26 10:05:02 UTC

It was negligence because the person's conduct did not meet the requirements.

Tanya van der Westhuizen

2022-05-26 10:06:05 UTC

Yes and no, leaving the donkeys was not a direct act to the harm caused to Lumi.
But the crackers going of was the direct cause for the donkeys to run over Lumi.

A. Molebatsi

2022-05-26 10:06:09 UTC

Yes. Because if maybe the teacher asked someone to monitor the donkeys, the person could have calmed them down after the learners lit the fire crackers and told the learners not to do it anywhere near the donkeys.

Kgothatso

2022-05-26 10:09:58 UTC

The teacher did not intent (intend) for the harm to occur but, there was a form of negligence portrayed. Animals cannot be controlled so the possibility of the donkeys going off was a situation to take into consideration. The teacher could have thought about that possibility first before leaving the alone. Since the harm was foreseeable, it could have been well prevented by asking someone to supervise the stall while the teacher went to get food. I think the teacher is at fault for negligence.

Portia Mahlangu

2022-05-26 10:10:49 UTC

The teacher should have known challenges of leaving donkey's unattended, the act was willfull

Kgothatso

2022-05-26 10:16:00 UTC

I don't think it was a willful act to harm the learner.

Matthew Bodenstein 28714156

2022-05-26 10:16:37 UTC

Yes. There was physical and psychological damage.
Physical - Lumi broke 2 legs, 1 arm, crushed fingers and one blind eye. Also damage to the head.

Matthew Bodenstein 28714156

2022-05-26 10:17:28 UTC

The teacher actions leaving to find something to eat can be seen as willfull. This as he did not expect the donkeys to behave like that. There can be negligence as he left the children unattended.

Matthew Bodenstein 28714156

2022-05-26 10:18:29 UTC

The teacher should have got someone to watch over the kids and the Donkeys. The cause of him leaving the children unattended resulted in this action. Especially with the Donkeys.

Matthew Bodenstein 28714156

2022-05-26 10:19:09 UTC

Yes, as the teacher is the Loco parentis. He cannot just leave the children because he is hungry.

Matthew Bodenstein 28714156

2022-05-26 10:19:57 UTC

The teacher is at fault. This as he failed in the act of Loco parentis. He had a responsibility. He cannot just leave the children to look after themselves without supervision.

Kgothatso

2022-05-26 10:22:19 UTC

I think that since learners have to always be under an elder's supervision for any school activity, the teacher's actions can be classified as unlawful. It was the teacher's responsibility to guard the donkeys so that they don't go off causing such harm.

C Williams

2022-05-26 12:48:15 UTC

Yes
He was harmed physically and emotionally. His life might be shortened because of the brain damage that occurred

Kgomotso Mogale 32657625

2022-05-26 12:49:10 UTC

Lumi sustained physical injuries, which means he was harmed.
And he will not be able to do some things because he might not be able to walk and has some fingers removed.

C. Williams

2022-05-26 12:49:32 UTC

No.
Harm would not have taken place if he did not leave his post or took precautionary measures.

C.Williams

2022-05-26 12:50:51 UTC

Yes it was unlawful.
Because it violated the insured's right to safety

Kgomotso Mogale 32657625

2022-05-26 12:51:20 UTC

The teacher left the donkeys ‘will fully’ unattended and without measures put in place.

Annamart Visser 34412492

2022-05-26 12:52:06 UTC

Lumi suffered from two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed. He also became blind due to small rocks and also suffered from brain damage. Lumi will never walk again.

C. Williams

2022-05-26 12:52:42 UTC

Yes the teacher was at fault. As he left his post without making sure that it is safe to do so or thinking what can happen if the donkeys got scared

Annamart Visser34412492

2022-05-26 12:53:44 UTC

The teacher left the donkeys unauthorised, out of his free will. The donkey dragged Lumi, therefore an animal caused the conduct.

C. Williams

2022-05-26 12:53:52 UTC

He left the donkeys unattended at his own free will. He was not forced

34211276_SC Bicker Caarte

2022-05-26 12:54:42 UTC

If there had been safety measures in place there would have been no accident. The teacher should have had other people there to help.

Annamart Visser 34412492

2022-05-26 12:54:49 UTC

The action probably would not have taken place if the teacher, had taken more care in making sure the donkeys are secure.

Kgomotso Mogale 32657625

2022-05-26 12:55:16 UTC

Because the teacher left the donkeys unattended and without safety measures, Lumi was then injured by the donkeys, therefore there is a link between the teachers being neglected and the injuries sustained by the learner.

Due to the severity and permanency of the injuries he suffered he can never walk and use his hands to his full potential.

2022-05-26 12:56:09 UTC

26207583 lesego

Annamart Visser 34412492

2022-05-26 12:56:12 UTC

The act was unlawful.
The act violated Lumi's right to saftey and security, the right of being in an environment that is not harmful.

34211276_SC Bicker Caarten

2022-05-26 12:56:15 UTC

It was unlawful because the donkeys were in the teacher's care and it violated the rigth to be in a safe space

Marne Prinsloo 34592725

2022-05-26 12:56:53 UTC

Yes, it was illegal

27245039

2022-05-26 12:57:02 UTC

The learner experienced a serve damage Lumi broke 2 legs 1 arm and a finger and he also sufferd a brain damage.

Annamart Visser 34412492

2022-05-26 12:57:41 UTC

The teacher was at fault because he did not take enough care to make sure the donkeys are stable. I dont think the person wanted to let the action happen.

34211276_SC Bicker Caarten

2022-05-26 12:57:41 UTC

The fault is the teacher's because the teacher should have ensured the there are safety measures in place to ensure the learners safety

Kgomotso Mogale 32657625

2022-05-26 12:58:30 UTC

Teacher being neglect is unlawful.

Kgomotso Mogale 32657625

2022-05-26 13:00:02 UTC

The teacher was at fault and should be liable for the damage caused.

34211276_SC Bicker Caarten

2022-05-26 13:02:44 UTC

Lumi suffered physical harm as he suffered 2 broken legs, 2 fingers that needed to be removed and a briken arm. This would have created intense medical costs and will impact the way that Lumi will be able to work in the furture. Further He became blind from the small rocks and also sustained brain damage; this all impacts the life that he knows and will impact his future

34211276_SC Bicker Caarten

2022-05-26 13:05:09 UTC

The donkeys were left unattended by the teacher. Though it was the donkey's actions that cause the physical harm of Lumi the donkey was left in a space that was not correctly secured. Thus this the fault of the teahcer and the negeligent actions of the teacher

Tsholofelo Mokwai

2022-05-26 13:12:07 UTC

Lumi broke his 2 legs and his arm this made him suffer from physical harm and was also force to remove his fingers .

Tsholofelo Mokwai

2022-05-26 13:19:01 UTC

The teacher left the donkey unattended and without making sure that everything is in the good space or without making sure that the donkey won't cause any problems.

Tsholofelo Mokwai

2022-05-26 13:21:34 UTC

It was unlawful. Because it teachers responsibility to take care of everything.

Tsholofelo Mokwai

2022-05-26 13:23:42 UTC

It was his fault he could have made sure that everything is in control

Cornelia Roman, 28526287

2022-05-26 18:18:33 UTC

Lumi suffered both physical and psychological in the sense that he had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed and was blind in one eye. Psychological in the sense that he had an emotional shock by just being dragged by the donkeys. He suffered and was in pain. His life will never be the same again(loss of amenities in life). He lost his bicycle in the process as well.

Cornelia Roman, 28526287

2022-05-26 18:25:34 UTC

The teacher left the donkeys willfully, without putting any safety measures in place.

Seneo Motlhabi

2022-05-26 18:28:50 UTC

Lumi suffered mentally, physically and emotionally.
Pain and suffering - by being dragged around by the donkey.
Disfigurements - having his fingers removed, losing his eye side and never being able to walk.
Loss of health - him being in a hospital and injured causing him to take medication for most of his life and that he has to be on a wheelchair for the rest of his life
Emotional shock- thinking that he might die under those circumstances and during that process he's a child he was surely scared for his life. Now he has to be declared disabled for the rest of his life.
Shortened life expectancy - at that point he most probably thought he was dying and undergoing a surgery that he never expected was to happen. Coming out of surgery and not being able to walk or see again.
Loss of amenities of life- having never to walk again means that he will never experience that life that other kids will be having. He's life expectations is cut short due to this accident.

Cornelia Roman, 28526287

2022-05-26 18:29:22 UTC

Mr Thoby's act was the direct cause of Lumi's harm. If he had taken safety precautions all of this could have possibly been avoided. He could have asked someone to look after the donkeys while he went out to find something to eat.

Seneo Motlhabi

2022-05-26 18:36:06 UTC

The damage was caused by a human conduct, where the teacher left the donkey unattended and unsecured around people. Although the teacher was hungry he could've made sure the donkey cart was secure before he left, This was an action.

Seneo Motlhabi

2022-05-26 18:38:54 UTC

The teacher was the cause of the accident if he had taken safety measures before leaving the donkey the accident never would've occurred.

Cornelia Roman 28526287

2022-05-26 19:09:31 UTC

It was an unlawful act from the teacher's side. According to the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 8A(2) a public school must take measures to ensure the safety of learners during any school activity.

Seneo Motlabi

2022-05-26 19:13:14 UTC

Violation of subjective rights - according to the bill of right every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well being. Act (24)(a) and (b)
The South African School Act 84 of 1996: School activities Act 8A(2)(b) and (b)

Cornelia Roman 28526287

2022-05-26 19:28:50 UTC

The teacher has acted with fault his conduct did not meet the standard of care expected of him, it was negligence on his side. I do however believe that he felt guilt and was very sorry for this accident. It could be that the teacher did not foresee any of this, if he had then he most probably would have acted differently, it could be that Mr Thoby didn't know that the donkeys would be frightened by the fire crackers. It was an awful accident but it wasn't intentionally. Mr Thoby should have been more cautious either way.

Seneo Motlhabi

2022-05-26 19:34:45 UTC

Yes the teacher is at fault but it was an unintentional act that led to unfortunate and unforseen circumstances due to him neglecting to put the safety measures in place and assuming that the donkey will behave for those few minutes. He could've at least asked one of the other teachers to relief him. organizing of school activities Act 8(1)(b) there should be other bodies or teachers that are supervising the event with him. For that day they were dealing with a lot of activities that involved animals so you do not assume that nothing will happen, as you the teacher are still under a working environment and you have to follow school policy and that of SACE. The teacher had a responsibility and duty he had to follow and he did not do so.

27245039

2022-05-26 20:10:14 UTC

The teacher left the donkey unattended which is unlawful however I believe that he had the right to go get something to eat if only he asked another teacher to supervise while he's getting something to eat.

27245039

2022-05-26 20:14:42 UTC

The teacher was at fault for leaving however it could also be something that happens in the presence of a teacher aswel becuase sometimes we might not have control over a situation

Die onderwysers het die donkie Allen gelos oor hy honger was. Hy mag nie net die donkie gelos het teensy hy nie seker was Dat die donkie Kar veilig en vas was. Waar hy iemand (Ander onderwysers) om n oggie te Hou. Of hy Kom selfs Dat die leerders saam hom gegaan het, dis kon hy die skade voorkom.

2022-05-27 11:06:09 UTC

Malemela MJ

2022-05-27 11:29:10 UTC

The educator left the donkey alone without even looking weather the donkey is safe or not.

2022-05-27 11:29:15 UTC

Lumi suffered possible brain damage as well as a number of other dangerous injuries and thus it is a non-pecuniary loss.

P. Chwaro

2022-05-27 11:30:11 UTC

Non-pecuniary loss:
* Pain & suffering- Lumi shirt hooked somewhere underneath the donkey cart and the child was dragged along under it for quite a while.
*Disfigurement- Lumi had 2 broken legs, 1 broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed.
* Loss of health- Was blind in 1 eye due to small sharp rocks.
* Emotional shock- Lumi also suffered brain damage due to a severe blow to the head, and doctors fear that Lumi will never walk again

Marino Hughes 34338365

2022-05-27 11:31:07 UTC

Lumi suffered with physical injury as he broke 2 of he's legs and 2 fingers together with a broken arm. Causing high medical costs

P. Chwaro

2022-05-27 11:32:50 UTC

A willful human conduct
Mr Toby left the donkeys unattended

P. Chwaro

2022-05-27 11:37:09 UTC

The act was the direct cause of the harm.
Mr Toby left the donkeys which were still harnessed stand at a bucket filled with hey and carrots.

P. Chwaro

2022-05-27 11:39:02 UTC

Breach of a legal duty- Duty of care, careful supervision

P. Chwaro

2022-05-27 11:43:02 UTC

Negligence- The teacher did not meet the standard of care expected of him. The harm was foreseeable, he could have prevented it.

34716963

2022-05-27 11:56:21 UTC

Lumi suffered both physical and psychological damage.
Physically, because he broke both his legs, one of his arms arm, crushed his fingers on his right hand which had to be removed and was left blind in one of his eyes. He also now suffers brain damage.
Psychologically, because the whole experience must have been very traumatising and will thus cause emotional shock. This accident left the child disfigured which will most definitely contribute to loss of amenities of life which can also lead to a state of depression. Property was also damaged, because the child's bike was broken.

34716963

2022-05-27 12:40:19 UTC

The damaged was caused by a willful human, which was the teacher. By free will, the teacher left the donkeys unattended. If only the teacher had fastened the donkeys completely before he left, they might not have run away, and the accident could have been avoided.

34716963

2022-05-27 12:49:11 UTC

I don't think that the direct cause of the accident was that teacher left the donkeys and went to buy food. I rather think the cause was that the donkeys had not been fastened properly. Whether the teacher was at the stall or not, in both situations, the donkeys would run away if they had a fright.

34716963

2022-05-27 12:58:19 UTC

The teacher is though guilty for unlawfulness by breaching a legal duty. For in Section 8A(2) of The South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 it states that the school must take measures to ensure safety of leaners during any schooling activity. A child got severely hurt at a school event and thus this law was breached by the teacher who was responsible for that specific stall.

34716963

2022-05-27 13:05:31 UTC

Because a reasonable person could have foreseen this accident and could have avoided it from happening by completely fastening the donkeys, the teacher is blameworthy of negligence.

23602945 T.K. Sefike

23602945 — 2023-04-12 11:00:36 UTC

Mr Toby left the donkeys unsupervised. This is harming a legal sense, he neglected his legal duties to guard the donkeys and also ensure the learners' safety.
The donkeys ran over Lumi, this is physical harm.
This includes Lumi's other physical injuries, the 2 broken legs and one broken arm.
Financial damage took place as there were hospital Bill's incurred.
Psychological harm due to brain injury.

23602945 T.K. Sefike

23602945 — 2023-04-12 11:02:26 UTC

Willful, human conduct. Mr Toby left the donkeys unsupervised.
Mr Toby left the learners unprotected.

Mr Toby's act was willful. He could have waited for another teacher to relieve him and take over the donkey guard duty then have lunch thereafter

23602945 T.K. Sefike

23602945 — 2023-04-12 11:08:32 UTC

The act was the direct cause of the harm.
The teacher left the donkeys unsupervised. The donkeys then crashed into the school learner. The learner suffered injuries due to the donkey cart accident.

23602945 T.K. Sefike

23602945 — 2023-04-12 11:11:29 UTC

The teacher's actions were wrong, unlawful and also unjustifiable.
He had a duty of care for the learners as well as for the donkeys.

23602945 T.K. Sefike

23602945 — 2023-04-12 11:13:59 UTC

The teacher had fault in the form of negligence.
His actions did not meet the standard of care that is expected of teachers. It is generally accepted that teachers are responsible for the safety of learners

37255010

2023-04-12 13:40:41 UTC

Damage/Loss: What occurred during this incident shows that damage occurred: the fact that the Grade 2 learner was run over and drag under the donkey cart that ultimately resulted in loosing eyesight in the one eye, two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand that were removed and the brain damage he suffered from the incident. As well as the damage done to the learner's bicycle. Both property and personal damage can be proven as well as financial in the case of hospital bills.

37255010

2023-04-12 13:41:21 UTC

Wilful human conduct: The visible action was the damage caused by the donkeys getting a fright from crackers going off and bolting and accidently running the Grade 2 learner over. However the primary action was the teacher who wilfully or took upon the conscious decision to leave his stall he was responsible for supervising therefore no one was around to ensure nothing happens with the donkeys which are not domestic animals and cannot be controlled without a leash for example. The learners who sparked the crackers near the donkeys also played a role in the tragic event.

37255010

2023-04-12 13:41:52 UTC

Illegality/Unlawfulness of the act: In terms of the guideline that a teacher when put control over dangerous objects such a wild animal like donkeys, the teacher has the legal duty to ensure they ensure that they have proper control over the object. In this case scenario, the teacher knew he had to supervise the donkey cart stall, however decided to leave and get lunch without ensuring there was someone to take his place therefore leaving the donkeys unsupervised and furthermore constituting unlawfulness as he breached his legal duty to have control of the dangerous objects.

37255010

2023-04-12 13:42:16 UTC

Causal link between act and the damage/loss: A direct, causal relationship between the fact that the teacher left his stall unsupervised and neglected his legal duty of ensuring control of dangerous objects (the donkeys) and the damage to the Grade 2 learner, Lumi, can be proven. If the teacher did not leave his supervision duty, he would have been able to ensure the donkeys were would have not gotten frightened and run by keeping hold of them as well as preventing the other learners from letting of loud crackers off near the donkeys therefore preventing them getting frightened.

37255010

2023-04-12 13:42:39 UTC

Fault: There is no proof that the teacher intentionally wanted to cause hurt and damage to any bystanders by leaving his stall with the donkeys alone to get lunch it occurred due to negligence on part of the teacher therefore the test of reasonable person should be applied to determine possible negligence. In terms of reasonable foreseeability the teacher could have foreseen the donkeys can run free if not supervised or not controlled and that donkeys are easily frightened by loud noises like crackers therefore negligence can be confirmed. However in terms of reasonable preventability the teacher could have prevented the donkeys from escaping the stall when frightened if he were to remain supervising the stall as he was made responsible for therefore the extremity of harm caused to Lumi could have been prevented. The teachers failure to take precautionary measures to ensure the donkeys were still supervised whilst he was not at his stand was none existent because the teacher could have easily asked another teacher to take his place. Therefore because the damage was both reasonably foreseeable and preventable it can be stated that the teacher consequently acted negligently.

37502077 D. Viviers

2023-04-12 14:33:33 UTC

Harm/ loss/ damages: In this case the grade 2 learner lost financially, because losing his bicycle and the medical bills & expenses costs him and his family money. He also underwent physical losses to himself, because he broke 2 legs, he broke his arm, his fingers on his right hand were crushed, he went blind in one eye, he suffered brain damage and the doctors say there is a possibility that he would never walk again.

37502077 D. Viviers

2023-04-12 14:37:00 UTC

Act/ Conduct: Mr. Toby made the conscious decision to leave the donkeys and donkey cart unsupervised, because he became hungry even after he was instructed or given the responsibility to supervise the donkeys and the donkey cart.

37502077 D. Viviers

2023-04-12 14:39:29 UTC

If Mr. Toby remained at the donkey cart, as he was given the responsibility to do, he would've been able to prevent the donkeys from running off with the cart if they got a fright.

37502077 D. Viviers

2023-04-12 14:41:45 UTC

Unlawfulness/ wrongness: Mr. Toby was responsible for supervising the donkeys and the donkey cart. Thus, him making the conscious decision to leave the donkeys unsupervised is a breach of his duty of care.

37502077 D. Viviers

2023-04-12 14:47:30 UTC

Fault: Mr. Toby is at fault for what happened to the Grade 2 learner, because he acted with negligence when he decided to leave the donkey cart and he did not act according to his responsibility to supervise the cart. It can also be said that it is reasonably foreseeable that donkeys can get a fright and start to run off, thus it is a situation that could've easily been prevented if Mr. Toby just remained at the donkeys supervising them and the cart, or the damages could've been less if he detached the donkey kart from the donkeys before he left them alone.

37290304

2023-04-13 13:39:19 UTC

Lumi suffered physical harm as he got dragged by two donkeys
He braked 2 legs, 2 fingers and his arm. This would have created intense medical cost and will impact the way Lumi will be able to work in the future

37290304

2023-04-13 13:41:34 UTC

Mr toby left the donkeys unsupervised and it was a wilful act He could have asked someone to get him something to eat as he had a responsibility to look at the donkeys

37419803

2023-04-14 11:48:54 UTC

Lumi suffered non-pecuniary loss. He suffered pain, disfigurement, loss of health, etc. All this happened due to him being dragged by a donkey.

Lumi suffered the damages both pecuniary loss and non- pecuniary loss as she was dragged by the cart of the dog until she lost her arm and and foot, she even experienced brain damage which will eventually cost her money to go to the doctor hence both damages are applicable in her .

2023-04-14 11:51:05 UTC

33302596

2023-04-14 11:51:18 UTC

The educator left the donkeys unsupervised with the learners. He didn’t check if it was safe to leave them alone with the donkeys.

D Stroebel (37470019)

2023-04-14 11:51:27 UTC

The learner suffered pecuniary as well as non- pecuniary loss. His bicycle suffered damage and he suffered pain, loss of health, emotional shock as well as loss of amenities of life.

Lumi was injured, two broken legs and one broken arm, crushed fingers

2023-04-14 11:51:38 UTC

37978985 Kyla Griffiths

2023-04-14 11:52:41 UTC

Lumi suffered many injuries. She has two broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingerswhich had to be removed, blind in the one eye, has brain damage and there is a chance she can't walk anymore. Which means there will be medical expenses, there is pain and suffering, there is disfigurement, emotional shock and loss of amenities.

37419803

2023-04-14 11:52:45 UTC

The damage was not caused by a human. Although it was Mr. Toby had to watch the donkeys, he would not be able to predict or stop their behaviour. As the scenario stated, a couple of parents were needed to get the donkeys to a halt, which was not quick. The donkeys conducted the action.

33302596

2023-04-14 11:53:03 UTC

Lumi had two broken legs and a broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed.

37697838

2023-04-14 11:53:05 UTC

Lumi suffered non-pecuniary loss. The harm happend to the person self. Lumi was run over and dragged by the donkeys. It caused pain, suffer and discourament. He also suffered from a severe brain injury.

Pecuniary loss also accord by the donkeys damaging Lumi's bike.

TM Nyathi 34617302

2023-04-14 11:53:06 UTC

Yes, Lumi was taken to the hospital with severe injuries. Broken legs, one broken arm, crashed fingers.

Lumi was harmed physically which we regard as the non-pecuniary loss and the injuries he has suffered may also contribute to him not being able to generate any income for himself as he has also suffered a brain damage which cannot be fixed.

molaleke — 2023-04-14 11:53:22 UTC

28115139

2023-04-14 11:53:33 UTC

The teacher left donkey with the children unsupervised

34260528

2023-04-14 11:53:36 UTC

Lumi suffered a non- pecuniary loss. He suffered pain
Lumi had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed, was blind in one eye
Lumi also suffered brain damage

2023-04-14 11:53:43 UTC

Lumi had loss of health, got emotional shock,disfigurement and loss of amenities of life.

37530208

2023-04-14 11:53:51 UTC

The two year old boy, Lumi, suffered physical harm. After the incident he had two broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingers on his right hand. The incident also made him blind in his one eye and he suffered brain damage.

The boy also suffered a pecuniary loss since his bicycle was ruined and his parents had to pay medical bills.

37978985 Kyla Griffiths

2023-04-14 11:53:57 UTC

The donkeys cause the injury not a human.

D Stroebel (37470019)

2023-04-14 11:53:57 UTC

It was a willful human conduct. If Mr Toby had not left the place he was supposed to supervise, it would not have happened. If his act was different, the harm would not have happened. It was his responsibility

Lumi suffered Physical harm because he broke both his legs and one of his arms because of this it would cost his parents an arm and a leg to pay for the med billsHe also suffered psychological harm due to brain injury

2023-04-14 11:54:05 UTC

2023-04-14 11:54:52 UTC

Lumi had experienced harm. So this automatically means that the damages that he experienced can limit his life in many ways. For instance, he's no longer going to use some of his body parts to their full potential.

Harm/Damage

2023-04-14 11:54:54 UTC

The bycle got ruined, Lumi had 2 broken legs,one broken arm crushed fingers, blind in one eye,suffered brain damage possibility of not walking again.

34320210

sdejager6 — 2023-04-14 11:54:57 UTC

Lumi has suffered severe injuries due to donkeys running over him. His injuries were 2 broken legs, 1 broken arm and crushed fingers which means his future to get a job will be much more difficult. His medical bill will also extend in the future due to the incident.

37697838

2023-04-14 11:54:58 UTC

There was a willful human act, Mr Toby willfully left the donkeys unattended and although they had harnesses on he did not fasten them to something for the short while he would be gone.

The teacher failed to put the safety of the learners first and left the donkey unattended without keeping to mind what might happen.

molaleke — 2023-04-14 11:55:00 UTC

D Stroebel (37470019)

2023-04-14 11:55:20 UTC

If the act was different or did not happen the harm would not have taken place. Is he did what was asked of him, he could have prevented the action from happening.

33302596

2023-04-14 11:55:26 UTC

The act was the direct cause of the harm. He left the donkeys unsupervised with the learners. The donkeys got frightened and then harmed the learner.

37419803

2023-04-14 11:55:26 UTC

The action would still have had the same results if Mr. Toby had been there. The donkeys got frightened by crackers that Mr. Toby could not have controlled. And if he were there when the donkeys got frightened, he would not be able to stop or control them. Th act would still have occured.

38492644

2023-04-14 11:55:30 UTC

Lumi suffered non-pecuniary loss as she lost the fingers on her right hand, suffered brain damage and broke both her legs and an arm.

If the teacher was there or left someone at the stall to supervise or protect the children.

2023-04-14 11:55:36 UTC

37978985 Kyla Gtiffiths

2023-04-14 11:55:40 UTC

There is no way to say that if the teacher was there that he could have prevented the accident thetefore there is no causal link.

The learner's bicycle was damaged and he suffered physical pain as well as emotional shock and loss of amenities of life. This means that the learner suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss

2023-04-14 11:55:58 UTC

38103206

2023-04-14 11:56:01 UTC

A willful human act is evident because Mr Toby was negligent.He could have left someone else to look after the donkeys when he went to the toilet.

2023-04-14 11:56:03 UTC

In Lumi’s case there was no wilful human act , the damage was caused by the donkeys , therefore the court cannot lie charges for the act.

37978985 Kyla Griffiths

2023-04-14 11:56:23 UTC

The teacher had a duty of care.

38067668

2023-04-14 11:56:33 UTC

Lumi suffered harm/ loss/ damages. The grade 2 learner suffered physical harm when he was run over by the donkey and got stuck under the cart. This resulted in the loss of Lumi's eye sight, two broken legs, a broken arm and crushed fingers on the right hand. The doctors fear that Lumi may not walk again. There was damage to the bicycle and therefor both property and personal damage is at play and can be proven to have financial implications.

33302596

2023-04-14 11:56:35 UTC

Breach of legal duty. Legal duty of care, supervision.

37697838

2023-04-14 11:56:40 UTC

The act was the direct cause because the donkeys was left loose and unattended. If he fastened them or there was super vision over Lumi.

38829150

2023-04-14 11:57:06 UTC

This is a wilful human act which in this regard the teacher (Mr. Toby) ommitted to apply proper supervision by leaving the donkeys unattended and ensuring the safety of learners. Unfortunately, the donkeys ran over Luna and the kid was injured while the teacher was on break.

The reason Lumi is in this situation is because of the decision taken by the teacher to leave the donkeys unattended and due to that Lumi suffered a lot so there is a casual link.

molaleke — 2023-04-14 11:57:21 UTC

37530208

2023-04-14 11:57:22 UTC

The teacher, Mr. Toby, left the donkeys alone while in search of food. He had a responsibilty to ensure the safety of the animals and the learners near his stall. He should have asked a fellow teacher or adult to watch over his stall or to bring him some food. The teacher violated his conduct because he did not adhere to his responsibilty of the stall.

The educator had the right to go fetch something. But when coming to reality that educator was supposed to ask someone to look after the donkey.

2023-04-14 11:57:26 UTC

39525392

2023-04-14 11:57:36 UTC

Lumi suffered a patrimonial loss
Damage to property which is the bicycle.
Will have medical expenses because she broke her arm and suffered brain damage

35032944

2023-04-14 11:57:52 UTC

Lumi suffered a patrimonial loss because the donkey ruined lumi's bicycle. Lumi's parent have the right to claim damages.

Lumi suffered severe injuries that fall under medical expenses because lumi's parent wil have to pay for the medical treatment for his broken legs.The doctor stated that lumi will not be able to walk again.

D Stroebel (37470019)

2023-04-14 11:58:03 UTC

Breach of legal duty. Mr Toby made the conscious decision to leave his
place of supervision, to go and take care of his own needs when he was fully aware of his responsibility.

Legal duty care or supervision. The should have ask someone to look after the stall

2023-04-14 11:58:08 UTC

37740792

2023-04-14 11:58:15 UTC

This is wilfulness as the Mr was supposed to check the boys pockets before they went on the bus. Did some sort of search. The teacher breached his legal duty of care. I’m this scenario it shows that the teacher knew he had to supervise the donkeys yet went to the food cart stall. The original owners of the donkeys were at fault for leaving their animals unattended. The form of

38605600

2023-04-14 11:58:22 UTC

In this case , Lumi suffered severe physical injuries, he had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand
which had to be removed, and was blind in one eye due to small sharp rocks. This is a type of pecuniary loss Wich include medical expenses and damage of property as he lost his bicycle, "his bicycle was totally ruined."

33302596

2023-04-14 11:58:29 UTC

The teacher was at fault. When he left, he should’ve gotten someone in his place to look after the donkeys. He should be held responsible for what happened to Lumi.

37978985 Kyla Griffiths

2023-04-14 11:58:34 UTC

There was negligence on the part of the teacher as no one was looking after the donkeys. The accident was not foreseeable but it could have been prevented if he asked someone to fill his place.

36200255

2023-04-14 11:59:04 UTC

Lumi suffered both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
Pecuniary:
- Damage to property
- Medical expenses (Due to his injuries)

Non-pecuniary:
- Pain + Suffering of his injuries
- Disfigurement due to his injuries
- Emotional shock due to the traumatic experience
- Loss of amenities (Doctors fear he will never walk again)

38103206

2023-04-14 11:59:09 UTC

If Mr Toby was present,he would have calmed or controlled the donkeys. The donkeys wouldn’t have acted the way they did if there were no firecrackers.This act was a direct cause.

Though Mr Toby left the donkeys unsupervised he would not have stopped them from getting frightened and taking of dragging the poor child as we see a couple of parents had to come to rescue so him being there alone would not really help cause chances are he would also be dragged.

2023-04-14 11:59:12 UTC

38016400.

2023-04-14 11:59:42 UTC

Lumi suffered severed physical damage when he was dragged by the donkeys. The fact that he was taken to the hospital with severe injuries such as two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed finger, blinded and the fear of never Lumi never walking again leads to non- pecutinary los.

37419803

2023-04-14 11:59:44 UTC

There can be seen that Mr Toby had a breach of a legal duty because he did not complete his duties of careful supervision of the Donkeys. He did not do what was expected of him as a teacher, thus the court can see this as him being unlawful to his duties as a teacher. The rights of learners were not present, as their right to safety was not met by Mr Toby.

37697838

2023-04-14 11:59:51 UTC

Wrongfulness, there was a violation of subject right. Lumi right to a safe environment was violated.

Mr Toby responsibility and duty of care was the supervision of the donkeys at the stal.

38067668

2023-04-14 11:59:53 UTC

This was a willful human act, as Mr. Toby willfully left the donkeys unattended and without supervision and if he had been there, they might have reacted differently and more calmly to to the fire-crackers. Even tho the injury was caused by an animal, mr Toby was responsible for the donkey rides and so aswell the harnasses.

2023-04-14 11:59:55 UTC

39986276

Lumi suffered Severe damages physically, the damage led to Lumi breaking two legs,breaking one arm,crushing fingers on the right hand and that lead to Lumi going to live with pain and suffering all her life since her hand was removed and might not be able to walk again(non-pecuniary loss)which led to the hand being removed and her eye getting blind due to small sharp rock (non-pecuniary loss) and mentally(suffering from brain damage due to severe blow to the head).which also damaged her body and has a high possibility of not being able to walk again,and that led to loss of amenities(non-pecuniary loss)as Lumi will not be able to live her life fully due to the injuries.

T van Huyssteen, 37579207

2023-04-14 12:00:12 UTC

A grade 2 learner (Lumi) was harmed by an unsupervised donkey. Her bicycle was ruined and she was injured by the donkeycart. She was rushed to the hospital, she had 2 broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers that had to be removed and she is blind in one eye. She obtained brain damage and will never be able to walk again.

The form of harm:
- Medical expenses, because she had to go to the hospital.
- Damage to the person, because she had 2 broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers that had to be removed and she is blind in one eye.
- Emotional harm, because she will not be able to walk again, and she has brain damage and won't be able to play with her friends again.

34959580

2023-04-14 12:00:12 UTC

Lumi suffered a patrimony loss because his bicycle was damaged. Also had to pay medical expenses. She also suffered Non-Patrimonal Loss. She suffered physical injuries broke her leg and arm and also had a brain damage

37472550, Sharilize du Plessis

2023-04-14 12:00:37 UTC

Lumi sustained severe physical damage like broken bones, disfigurement, pain and suffering, emotional shock and loss of emmenities of life due to being blind and not being able to walk again. The family also had pencuniary medical loss due to paying for Lumi's medical expenses. There is also damage to property of Lumi's bike.

25242113

2023-04-14 12:00:40 UTC

Lumi suffered a lot of physical injuries such as two broken legs, a broken arm. Lumi's family experienced a loss of financial aid because they had to pay for the medical care that Lumi had to undergo. Lumi also faces loss of life amenities because the doctors don't think he'll be able to walk again and that prevents him from functioning in life to the full of his ability as before the injuries happened.

Leaving the donkeys unattended by the teacher was unlawful as he is supposed to ensure the safety of everyone especially where the animals are involved...the teacher is given the responsibility to look after the learners when the parents are absent, so learners right to life and the environment that is not harmful to them was violated.

molaleke — 2023-04-14 12:00:56 UTC

Legal duty of care

2023-04-14 12:01:03 UTC

2023-04-14 12:01:13 UTC

The learners’ right to safety and security as well as an environment that isn’t harmful were violated .

38411202

2023-04-14 12:01:23 UTC

Lumi suffered pecuniary as well as non-pecunairy damage/harm. Lumi suffered severeral injuries like for instance broken bones, eye injuries and brain damage and he will probabl never be able to walk again - pecuniary damage. The non-pecuniary damage is where his bicycle being ruined.

37525387 Harm/Injury

2023-04-14 12:01:35 UTC

Lumi suffered significant harm. He had two broken legs, a broken arm, crush fingers which ended in amputation, eye damage which resulted in permanent blindness in one eye. The severe injuries to his legs may lead to permanent paralysis.

34260528

2023-04-14 12:01:38 UTC

It was a willful human act because if the donkey was supervised the whole thing could have not happened, so leaving the donkey unsupervised made the donkey to managed to run off the time the fire cracker went off

Physical harm: broken arm, broken legs, one blind eye and brain damage, non-pecuaniary: medical expenses and pecuniary harm: pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of ammunities,

2023-04-14 12:01:39 UTC

I Pieterse 34658424

2023-04-14 12:01:50 UTC

Significant harm was caused to the learner. Lumi, the learner, broke both his legs, broke one arm, blinded one eye, lost the fingers of his right hand, and suffered brain damage.Medical expense, damage to the person, and emotional harm was caused.

34959580

2023-04-14 12:02:00 UTC

The person who was at fault Mr Toby left the donkeys unintended where he could have made the donkey to not be frightened by directing them in a different direction or lock them which shows negligence

Act/Conduct

2023-04-14 12:02:03 UTC

Fault there was negligence, Mr Toby was negligent he shouldn't have left the donkeys without any supervision.

35306149

2023-04-14 12:02:18 UTC

Lumi has suffered a non pecuniary loss as he experienced damage physically and physiologically, there was pain and suffering, emotional shock and there's a possibility that he might not walk again.His fingers were crushed and had to be removed and was blind in one eye.This will lead to his parents having medical bills.The person responsibly for the control of the donckeysif if he was not away the damage would have been avoided.So this was the Neglicience fault.

D Stroebel (37470019)

2023-04-14 12:02:49 UTC

It was caused because of negligence. As a teacher, you know your role is to be responsible for the children. When no harm could have happened, he would not have gotten the responsibility to supervise. It was reasonable foreseeability. Mr Toby is 100% responsible for what happened to the learner. He didn't think, he only qanted to take care of his own needs.

38067668

2023-04-14 12:02:51 UTC

There is a causal link between act and the damage/loss.
If Mr. Toby was there, the animals would have reacted differently to the fire-crackers being fired.He had a legal duty of ensuring control over the supervision of the donkeys. He may have prevented them running off or even stopped them as soon as he saw that a child had been caught under the cart.

37530208

2023-04-14 12:02:58 UTC

If Mr. Toby did not leave the stall unsupervised, the incident might not have happened. He could have warned the boys to not set of fireworks near animals, calmed the donkeys down or saved Lumi from harm.

34617302

2023-04-14 12:03:06 UTC

The teacher left the donkeys unattended and they were frightened by fire-crackers

34959580

2023-04-14 12:03:06 UTC

Legal duty of care so Mr Toby didn't that

2023-04-14 12:03:09 UTC

If the teacher could have not left the donkeys alone then Lumi would not have got injured and the donkeys could have not been frightened by the sound of the cracker , therefore there was a casual link .

39525392

2023-04-14 12:03:12 UTC

Mr Toby is at fault. He was responsible for the donkey cart rides.
Mr Toby was negligent.
How would a responsible person have acted under this circumstances? Wouldn’t have left the learners alone

It was the teacher's fault that this took place, he could have instead asked another teacher to help out but he didn't. He failed to keep the learner safe from any possible harm.

molaleke — 2023-04-14 12:03:18 UTC

Act

2023-04-14 12:03:44 UTC

The donkeys committed the act which caused the harm

39320790

2023-04-14 12:03:50 UTC

Lumi suffered from non-pecuniary harm to his body which is physical harm. He encountered disfigurement, loss of amenities to life as well as pain and suffering because he had severe injuries which is broken legs, blind in one eye and brain damage to the head and he may never be able to walk again.

Link

2023-04-14 12:04:13 UTC

If MR Toby did not leave the donkeys alone the damage would not have transpired.

39525392

2023-04-14 12:04:15 UTC

Right to a safe environment was violated

38067668

2023-04-14 12:04:35 UTC

Leaving the donkeys unattended was an unlawful act by mr Toby as the donkeys where his responsibility. When the learners' parents are absent, the teacher is responsible, therefor mr Toby can be held accountable for the loss, damages and injury of Lumi.

Lumi suffered a pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of health and loss of amenities of life

2023-04-14 12:04:37 UTC

34959580

2023-04-14 12:04:37 UTC

If the teacher didn't leave the learners alone this could have been prevented cause he as an adult knows that fire-crackers are not good for animals.

35032944

2023-04-14 12:04:40 UTC

In this case, We are experiencing an wilful human Act ,Because the teacher had the right to go and buy food but the problem was that he didn't leave anyone for supervision of the learner safety hence the donkey was able to run frightfully towards lumi and harm him

Lumi and the bicycle underwent harm. Pecuniary harm occured since there was damage to property. The bicycle, Lumi's property, was totally crashed under the donkeycart. There was medical costs since Lumi needed the ambulance and hospital and the costs had to be paid. Lumi's brain damage will prevent him from earning a decent salary in the future, so loss of income also occured. Non-pecuniary harm occured since damage to Lumi's physical body occured. He experienced pain and suffering, disfigurement since he lost fingers on his right hand and got a blind eye, emotional shock since he was dragged for quite a long time, may have a shortened life expectancy since he got brain damage, and loss of amenities of life since he lost a few fingers, sight in one eye, and brain power. The harm was thus very serious.

2023-04-14 12:04:51 UTC

37803182

34639594

2023-04-14 12:04:56 UTC

The learners were wrong so they are blameworthy because Mr Toby knows his donkeys, he knows they won't do no harm to anyone hence he left them unsupervised. If the group of learners did not lit the fire crackers the wouldn't be any harm

38016400

2023-04-14 12:05:08 UTC

The person(s) at fault were both Mr Toby and the boys who fired the crackers. Though the boys will may be held most accountable because it was a willful human act, Mr Toby could have prevented the donkeys from going crazy.

37697838

2023-04-14 12:05:11 UTC

The was negligence because if we applied the test the reasonable foreseeability the conduct of Mr Toby being there supervising the donkeys, even while the fire crackers go off, he could control them. And it would be preventable even if he fastened them.

37419803

2023-04-14 12:05:12 UTC

If we look at negligence and apply the questions to this scenario, we can see the following:
1. Reasonable foreseeable - It can be foreseen that if you leave animals unattended, anything can happen and that you will still be held responsible for anything that happens.
2. If harm was foreseen, was it reasonably preventable. I do not think that it could have been prevented, even if it was seen, the animas cannot be controlled if their adrenaline kicks in.

Annika J. v. V 37702416

2023-04-14 12:05:13 UTC

Harm/injury:
Lumi suffered injuries such as two broken legs, one broken arm and crushed fingers on his right hand which had to be removed. He was also blinded in one eye and suffered brain damage. Doctors also don't think he will walk again.
Because of this the type of loss Lumi will suffer from is Pecuniary loss in the form of medical expenses because he had to be taken to hospital because of his severe injuries. The second loss Lumi would have suffered would be damage to property because Lumi owned a bicycle that was crushed and broken during the donkey stampede. Lumi will also suffer from non-pecuniary loss in the form of damage to a person, pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of health, emotional shock as well as loss of amenities of life. Because he lost both his legs and won't be able to walk as well as the emotional trauma.

38605600

2023-04-14 12:05:23 UTC

In this case, the damage was cause by what the teacher did this falls under wilful human conduct because the teacher left to go to buy food and as per duty of a teacher (common law) it is the teacher responsibility to care for the learners as of special relationship the learners trust the teacher to keep them safe and the teacher failed on doing that in this scenario.

Cause and effect

2023-04-14 12:05:29 UTC

The teacher let the donkeys eat and then boys let crackers go off and the donkeys went berzerk

37530208

2023-04-14 12:05:32 UTC

Unlawfullness - Breach of duty:

Mr. Toby left the stall willingly even if he was aware of his duty to supervise the learners and the animals.

29086329.

2023-04-14 12:05:44 UTC

Lumi suffered non-pecuniary losses. Lumi was under severepain and suffering from being dragged under the donkeys, as well as emotional shock from the incident. In the process Lumi lost fingers in the right hand and small rocks caused Lumi to be blind leaving Lumi disfigured. Due to Lumis two broken legs, the child experienced a loss of amenities as the child could never experience walking again ever in life .

T van Huyssteen, 37579207

2023-04-14 12:05:49 UTC

Willful human conduct

Mr. Toby willfully left to have his lunch, which cased the donkeycart being unsupervised.
It was Mr. Toby's responsibility, to unharness the donkeycart and he did not do it. Therefore it is an non-action, something that have not been done to prevent the accident that happened.

38067668

2023-04-14 12:05:53 UTC

The learners who let off the fire-crackers were respponsible for the harm and damages done as is mr Toby who was responisble for the animals

Right to safety and security of a person, environment that is not harmful

2023-04-14 12:06:19 UTC

T van Huyssteen, 37579207

2023-04-14 12:07:30 UTC

The teacher did not unharness the donkeycart before he left it unsupervised which cased the accident. Mr. Toby had to made sure of his responsibility to keep the donkies supervised and he did not.

Sharilize du Plessis, 37472550

2023-04-14 12:07:34 UTC

It was the educator's responsibility to look after his stall and the donkeys. He should have made sure that it is under control at all times. The educator did not take action to secure the donkeys. The educator is the direct cause of harm becuase if he could have handeled the situation differently.

34260528

2023-04-14 12:08:34 UTC

It was unlawfulness
Violation of subjective legal rights because a this point Lumi's right to a safe environment was violated

2023-04-14 16:30:37 UTC

Lumi suffered brain damage. He aslo had his legs and arm broken.

2023-04-14 16:32:21 UTC

34260528

2023-04-14 16:57:11 UTC

The is a casual link because if the teacher did not leave the donkey unsupervised, the harm could not have been done

34260528

2023-04-14 16:59:42 UTC

The fault in this scenario is negligence
The teacher was suppose to watch the donkey or ask someone to watch it when she go and get the food but she didnt. The teacher didnt do what was expected from her

SD, 38829150

2023-04-14 18:01:54 UTC

Damage was caused since Luma was injured and his bicycle was damaged. He experienced pain and suffering when he was dragged by the donkeysfor quite some time. As a result, he suffered severe injuries as some parts of his body broke( legs and an arm) and one eye was injured that he lost its sight ,thus that is disfigurement. The doctors indicated that there's a possibility he might not walk again ( amenities effect). Luna went through a traumatic situation from all the pain (emotional shock). We also see patrimonial loss because he had to be hospitalised and this involves medical expenses with his damaged bicycle.

SD, 38829150

2023-04-14 18:07:34 UTC

This is a wilful human act by Mr Toby, the teacher. The teacher who had a responsibility over the donkeys ommitted to apply proper supervision by leaving the donkeys unattended while he could have left someone for a while to standin for him while he is on break, he therefore breached his legal duty for learners' safety. Unfortunately, the donkeys caused an accident where a kid was injured while the teacher was not there to protect the kid.

SD,38829150

2023-04-14 18:11:22 UTC

There is a casual link since Mr Toby was on duty to supervise, he could have taken responsibility to put someone in place of him while he's eating or rather should have he been there, he would have calmed the donkeys down, protected Lumi and also, maybe reprimanded the other children to stop with their fire crackers near the donkeys. The damage could have been prevented.

SD, 38829150

2023-04-14 18:18:26 UTC

Unlawfuness. The teacher is aware that he was in loco parentis position thus he had to ensure safety at all times for the learners yet he failed. He is obliged by law to take proper care of the learners. The teacher left the donkeys and yes the potential danger was created because donkeys are seen as dangerous objects in the case of learners around and it is an obligation of the teacher to be in control of these at all times.

SD,38829150

2023-04-14 18:22:07 UTC

This was negligence. Mr Toby,as a teacher , who was responsible, wouldn't have left the donkeys unattended in the presence of the learners. The donkeys are in supervision because of their nature ( they can be dangerous) yet no effort was made by Mr Toby to prevent a damage.

35032944

2023-04-14 18:29:58 UTC

The teacher is the cause link of this incident because he didn't leave any supervision to look after the learners while he went out or should have remained with the leaners to ensure that they are safe all the time. The teacher couldn't have tried to calm the donkey down.

35032945

2023-04-14 18:38:40 UTC

In this case, The incident that occurred can be seen as an unlawfulness because the teacher was in a position of the In Loco parentis means that the teacher was supposed to act as a responsible parent towards these leaners during his duty time but he didn't fulfill those duties hence the donkey was able to harm Lumi ,the donkey in this case can be seen as a dangerous object towards leaners.

35032944

2023-04-14 18:41:01 UTC

The teacher was negligent towards the safe of the leaners if he was a reasonable teacher he wouldn't have left the leaner without any supervision.

37940902

2023-04-14 19:10:50 UTC

Lumi suffered both Pecuniary (There is going to be medical expenses involved because Lumi had to be hospitalized) and non-pecuniary loss (Lumi had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand and was blind in one eye).

32374895

2023-04-14 19:13:38 UTC

Did harm occur?: Harm did occur.
Who sustained damage?: A grade 4 learner named Lumi.
What type of damage?: Non- pecuniary loss occured in the form of disfigurement and loss of amenities of life. Where
Lumi suffered two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed, and was blind in one eye due to small sharp rocks. Lumi also suffered brain damage due to a severe blow to the head.

37940902

2023-04-14 19:16:24 UTC

The Conduct was a non-action willful human conduct because the schoolteacher Mr. Toby was supposed to be guarding the donkeys and he got hungry and went to look for food leaving the donkey unsupervised.

37940902

2023-04-14 19:22:58 UTC

The teacher is not really the cause link but the boys who let off the firecrackers. They are the cause link because if the boys did not light up the firecrackers the donkey wouldn't have gotten scared and even if the teacher was there, I believe he wouldn't have known how to tame the donkey because he probably doesn't know much about donkeys.

32036310

2023-04-14 19:26:13 UTC

It was a willful human conduct becaus Mr Toby acted out of free will by leaving the donkeys alone.

32036310

2023-04-14 19:31:03 UTC

The teacher is the link because even though the kids are the ones who threatened the donkeys with crickets, the teacher was supposed to be there so that he can have control over avoiding such incidents from happening because the teacher knew that kids can be irresponsible that's the reason why the donkeys had to be supervised from the first place.

32374895

2023-04-14 19:31:27 UTC

Was damage caused by conduct of a human?: The damage was caused by the conduct of animals - donkey's which were fastened to a cart. Which were running away after being frightened by fire- crackers that were let off by a group of boys nearby.
Did the human act out of free will? Yes the group of boys were acting out of free will, they were not forced nor instructed to light fire crackers, they just acted out of their own free will.
Was the conduct an action?: The conduct was an action of donkey's fastened to a cart.

37940902

2023-04-14 19:33:01 UTC

In this regard the situation is seen as unlawfulness reason being that as a teacher you have duties and some of his duties was to ensure that the safety and security of learners and bringing an animal and leaving it unsupervised violated the rights of learners to an environment that is not harmful.

32036310

2023-04-14 19:35:04 UTC

It is wrong because the duty of care and careful supervision was neglected.

32036310

2023-04-14 19:36:11 UTC

The teacher is at fault because he neglected his duty and the kid got harmed.

37940902

2023-04-14 19:40:11 UTC

The teacher Mr. Toby was negligent. The reason he didn't think the donkey would go anywhere is because the donkey was still harnessed and there was a bucket filled with hey and carrots that could have kept the donkey busy while he went to go look for food.

32374895

2023-04-14 19:40:26 UTC

Was the act of the direct cause of the harm?: The act of the group of boys was a direct cause of the donkey's running out of fright. Thus the act of the donkey's was a direct cause of the harm. Though the act of Mr Toby, of leaving the donkey cart stand and leaving the donkey's unattended was not a direct cause of the harm.
If the person acted differently, would the harm still have taken place?: Most probably had Mr Toby not left the donkey's unattended, he could have reprimanded the group of boys. Thus preventing the harm from taking place.

29086329

2023-04-14 20:17:44 UTC

The damage was done wilfully by another group of boys. They consciously decided to let off firecrackers that frightened the donkeys into running wild.

29086329

2023-04-14 20:22:28 UTC

The act of letting off the crackers is the reason that the donkeys were running in fright. In that course, it caused the donkeys to run unfortunately dragging Lumi along. Had the group of boys not let off the crackers, the donkeys would not have been frightened nor will have Lumi been ran over by them.

29086329

2023-04-14 20:30:00 UTC

It is stipulated in the rights of children that children are to have safety and security. The teacher in common low was under loco parentis he was responsible for the safety of the learners and the supervision thereof. The teacher violated the learnees rights by not providing safety to tne learner when the donkeys ran loose. He breached his legal duty by leaving the children unsupervised and did not tend to his duty of care while he went to the stalls.

29086329

2023-04-14 20:33:35 UTC

The teacher is at fault, he knew that learners are to be supervised at all times. That means not having time to tend to your own needs for the sake of making sure that no harm comes to the learners. That is his duty and is inexcusable. He neglected his duties when he intentionally left the learners while attempting to buy something to eat.

32374895

2023-04-14 21:17:24 UTC

1. Violation of subjective rights:
According to section 12 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of S.A 1996 states that " Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources". Lumi's right to freedom and security of violence in public space is violated.
2. Breach of a legal duty:
The common law principle of the in loco parents position of the teacher being in position of authority and duty of care. Is breached when Mr Toby left the donkey's cart unattended without even asking a fellow staff member to supervise for the period he will be getting something to eat.

32374895

2023-04-14 21:37:05 UTC

Forms of fault
intent: Mr Toby, the group of boys nor the donkey's, all acted with no intention of causing harm.
Negligence: Mr Toby acted out of negligence when he decided to go get something to eat, leaving the donkey's unattended.
Reasonable foreseeability: It was not reasonable foreseeable that Mr Toby's s conduct could have lead to the harm. Though it was reasonably foreseeable that the conduct of the group of boys could have lead to harm.
Reasonable preventability: Ways of preventing harm was to reprimand the group of boys and for Mr Toby to ask someone to supervise the donkey's in his place while he went to get food.

36205869

2023-04-14 23:55:44 UTC

Lumi suffered brain damage. He also had his legs and arm broken. His eye also went blind.

36205869

2023-04-14 23:58:12 UTC

It is a willful human conduct because it was Mr Toby's responsibility to look after the donkeys. He left and the donkeys ran away until they caused damages they caused to the boy

36205869

2023-04-14 23:59:47 UTC

I think the cause for the incident is those fire crackers because if it wasn't for them, the donkeys wouldn't have tried to escape and harm the boy.

36205869

2023-04-15 00:00:57 UTC

Unlawfullnes; breach of a contract

36205869

2023-04-15 00:01:34 UTC

The person that the blame suits is Mr Toby

37175769

2023-04-15 13:25:37 UTC

Lumi suffered Brain loss. He broke his arm and both his legs. His fingers have to be kept out. Now Medical attention has to be seeked and this leads to Pecuniary loss.

37175769

2023-04-15 13:28:47 UTC

The damage was willful because Mr Tom was out to buy food and left the donkeys alone.

37175769

2023-04-15 13:32:07 UTC

The fire crackers lit by those boys was the cause of the incident.

37175769

2023-04-15 13:34:00 UTC

Learners have rights to safety and security, hence there was a breach of legal duty.

37175769

2023-04-15 13:36:03 UTC

Negligence: Mr Toby acted out of negligence as he was the one in control of the donkeys but left them alone and caused the harm to a learner.

37893378

2023-04-15 15:01:02 UTC

There was harm and damage. Lumi, a grade 2 learner, sustained severe injuries. Lumi had 2 broken legs,a broken arm, crushed fingers, which had to be removed and Lumi was blinded in one eye. Lumi also suffred brain damage and might never walk again

37893378

2023-04-15 15:02:31 UTC

Willful miss conduct because Mr.Toby willingly left the donkeys alone to go get food. When it was his job to constantly keep an eye on them

37893378

2023-04-15 15:06:22 UTC

There were boys who set off firecrackers, thus initiating everything, startling the donkeys and causing,them to run wild.

37893378

2023-04-15 15:08:59 UTC

Unlawfulness

The teacher in this scenario was the in loco parentis,meaning he was responsible for keeping the children safe.

31820239

2023-04-15 17:25:41 UTC

Wilful human conduct , though the damages where not done directly by the teacher but it was his responsibility to look after the donkey cart but he failed to due to a small thing “being hungry “ in result the safety and security of the learner’s rights was violated

31820239

2023-04-15 17:27:14 UTC

The fire crackers lit by the boys where the cause of this incident

37608177

2023-04-15 17:28:30 UTC

There was damage because the donkey ran right over Lumi, a grade 2 learner who was riding a small bicycle.Lumi’s bicycle was totally ruined Lumi had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand
which had to be removed, and was blind in one eye due to small sharp rocks.
Lumi also suffered brain damage due to a severe blow to the head, and
doctors fear Lumi will never walk again. The incident caused financial losses.

31820239

2023-04-15 17:32:09 UTC

Unlawful , reason being is that that teacher was in position of the in loco parentis meaning he was supposed to act as a responsible parent towards the learners

31820239

2023-04-15 17:34:36 UTC

The teacher is to blame because he neglected his duty again those boys too are to blame because why would they lit fire cracker where animals are present

37608177

2023-04-15 17:39:03 UTC

The conduct was non action wildful human conduct because the teacher was suppose to ensure that the donkey is tied or kept away from school kids. Due to him being hungry he left the donkey unsupervised.

37608177

2023-04-15 17:41:33 UTC

the donkeys became frightened by fire-crackers that was
let off by a group of boys nearby.

37608177

2023-04-15 17:51:19 UTC

unlawfulness The teacher was in loco parentis position he had to ensure that the school kids are protected at all times.The teacher failed to unsure safety of learners is protected. The incident resulted in Lumi being injured.

37608177

2023-04-15 17:59:10 UTC

Mr Toby was the one in charge of everything even those small boys would have not let fire-crackers if there was supervision.

32936192

lehlohonolomofokeng199 — 2023-04-15 18:38:43 UTC

There was harm and some damages. The donkeys ran right over Lumi and dragged him along for a while. He suffered severe injuries because his legs were broken, one arm was broken, his fingers were crushed and to be removed, he suffered from a brain damage. His bicycle was also crashed.

27491269

2023-04-15 18:44:05 UTC

There is a casual link. If Mr Toby would have not left the donkeys unattended damage could have been prevented.Lumi would have not been injured. Mr Toby could have asked someone else to stand for him. Or the school should have assigned atleast 2 teachers for each stall

32936192

lehlohonolomofokeng199 — 2023-04-15 18:51:40 UTC

Wilful human conduct. The Mr Toby left the donkeys unattended and he was in loco parentis. He was supposed to make sure that there is someone who is looking at the donkeys while he went to buy food. And no one is allowed to carry dangerous objects which may be harmful in the school premises which in this case is the fireworks and the matches used to lit the fireworks. Therefore, the learners also broke the law.

27491269

2023-04-15 18:54:11 UTC

Mr Toby left the donkeys unsupervised. It was his responsibility to look after the donkeys. Had he handled the situation differently, the accident would have been prevented. Therefore the damage is non-action willful conduct.

32936192

lehlohonolomofokeng199 — 2023-04-15 18:55:12 UTC

There is a casual link, which occurred when the group of boys lit the fireworks which frightened the donkeys and resulted in them injuring Lumi.

32936192

lehlohonolomofokeng199 — 2023-04-15 18:59:43 UTC

Unlawfulness, Mr Toby was responsible for for the donkey cart rides and also in loco parentis to the learners attending the bazaar. Therefore he should have left another teacher or governing body to watch the donkeys while he went to buy food

32936192

lehlohonolomofokeng199 — 2023-04-15 19:05:07 UTC

It is Mr Toby and governing body's fault that Toby got injured. The governing body had to make sure that no learner has any dangerous objects with them before the event started, because fireworks and matches are dangerous to be handled by grade 2 learners without any parental guidance. Mr Toby had to make sure that the donkeys are not left unattended as they may be harmful to the learners.

27491269

2023-04-15 19:14:51 UTC

Unlawfulness
Mr Toby was in a position of Loco parentis. He had legal duty of care and safety of which he did not fulfill. Mr Toby breached his legal duties. The right to a safe environment of a learner was violated.

27491269

2023-04-15 19:40:46 UTC

There was both Pecuniary and non-Pecuniary loss

Pecuniary Loss
-medical expenses and damaged bicycle

Non-pecuniary Loss
Lumi had: two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers, a blind eye and suffered brain damage.

27491269

2023-04-15 19:52:21 UTC

Negligence
The harm was preventable & foreseeable but Mr Toby did not take any actions to prevent it instead he left the donkeys unsupervised. Therefore he was negligent.

28928806

2023-04-16 11:58:57 UTC

Lumi suffered both Pecuniary loss and Non-Pecuniary loss. The damage to his bicycle( property) and medical expenses were applicable. In terms of the non-pecuniary loss, Lumi sustained physical injuries, two broken legs, one broken arm and crushed fingers that had to be removed , blind eye and psychological damage(brain damage).

28928806

2023-04-16 12:06:10 UTC

There was an act of omission. It was the teacher's duty and responsibility as a reasonable person to foresee the possibility of the circumstance to occur. It constitute a willful conduct because he should have thought about it not to leave the donkeys unsupervised.

28928806

2023-04-16 12:13:21 UTC

There is a causal link between teacher's duty to act responsibly and the his act of omission was a direct cause of harm. However, if Mr Toby could have acted differently by not leaving without any supervision, the harm could have not occurred. It is there

28928806

2023-04-16 12:44:07 UTC

The unlawfulness was 1) the violation of subjective right to safety and security of leaner(s) , the right to life, and the right to education. Mr Toby breached his legal duty of care for the safety of leaners. With reference to the South African common law, the person(Mr Toby- the teacher) in loco parentis is granted the authority over the leaners. The special relationship between the parent who indirectly delegate parental authority through the school, requires the teacher to act responsibly to ensure safety if leaners.
In terms of the statutory duties, the South African schools Act Chapter 8, section 2 entails that a public must ensure to take measure to ensure safety of leaners during any school activity (a) ensuring against accidents, injuries, medical expenses and hospitalization (b) ensuring where reasonably applicable, that leaners are under supervision of an accompanying educator at all times.

35306149

2023-04-16 12:48:15 UTC

The damage caused by a conduct of both human and animal, it was action although it was not a willingful human conduct.

28928806

2023-04-16 12:51:16 UTC

Negligence- Mr Toby's conduct did not meet the standard of care expected of him by the parents and the school body. He neglected the duty to care for leaners and ensuring safety and security. Therefore, Section 60 holds that the state is liable for any damage/loss/injury due to an act of omission in connection to any educational activity at a public school which in the scenario, it constitute the basis of liability of negligence by Mr Toby.

35306149

2023-04-16 12:51:55 UTC

The cause was not direct from a human but the animal donkey, but if the person acted differently the harm wouldn't have occurred.

35306149

2023-04-16 12:54:00 UTC

There's a breach of legal duty, duty of care and careful supervision have been violated

35306149

2023-04-16 12:55:42 UTC

In this case it was negligence the person responsibly for donkeys did not meet the standard of care expected of them

23004800

rasebitsetshego — 2023-04-16 19:11:47 UTC

The harm was foreseeable and it could have been prevented, therefore it was negligence as Mr Toby left the donkeys unsupervised

34306609

2023-04-16 19:30:14 UTC

The harm towards Lumi was pecuniary because his bicyle was ruined and his shirt was torn apart because it hooked somewhere underneath the cart. Also, the harm resulted in medical expense because Lumi had to be taken to the hospital for the severe injuries to be taken care of.
On the other hand, the harm was non-pecuniary because the damage to Lumi is physical and psychological due to the brain damage. Furthermore, Lumi suffered the pain of injuries and might not be able to walk again which can be regarded as loss of health.
Therefore, the injuries or harm towards Lumi is serious because it negatively affected him physically, psychologically and financially.

23004800

2023-04-16 19:33:50 UTC

Lumi suffered both Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary loss.
In terms of Pecuniary loss, Lumi's bicycle was damaged and he also incurred medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary; Lumi sustained physical injuries and psychological damage.

23004800

2023-04-16 19:42:00 UTC

Wilful human conduct, even though the damages were not done by the teacher, it was his responsibility to guard the donkey and take care of Lumi and the rest of the learners as he was in position of loco parentis.

34306609

2023-04-16 19:42:49 UTC

The act was willful human conduct of non-action because the teacher (Mr Toby) was in loco parentis so he failed to fulfil his responsibility during the period of harm (he did not take action of his responsibility). Mr Toby could have asked an adult to look over the stall while he is away. Thus, the harm might have been prevented.

23004800

2023-04-16 19:46:52 UTC

The boys that lit the fire crackers are the ones that caused the incident.

23004800

2023-04-16 19:55:49 UTC

Unlawfulness
Mr Toby was in position of loco parentis, therefore it was his duty provide care and safet to learner, to avoid damages and liabilities.

34306609

2023-04-16 19:56:59 UTC

There is a casual link between the teacher's responsibility and his act of omission. The act was the direct cause of the harm because if Mr Toby acted differently, the harm wouldn't have taken place. Mr Toby was going to be able to stop the boys from playing with the fire crackers that frightened the donkeys. Therefore, the harm wouldn't have occurred.

34306609

2023-04-16 20:27:32 UTC

Mr Toby breached his duty of care towards the learner because he was in loco parentis so he had the responsibility to supervise the learners carefully to prevent damage or any harm that might occur to the learners at the bazaar. In terms Section 4 (4.6) of the South African Schools Act, 84 of 1996, learners have the right to a clean and safe environment that is conducive to education. Therefore, Mr Toby may be dismissed if found guilty of violation of subjective learner's rights.

34306609

2023-04-16 20:36:21 UTC

The harm can be regarded as a fault negligence because the harm was unforeseeable because the teacher had no idea that the boys will play with fire crackers that would frighten the donkeys.

38629589

2023-04-16 21:23:08 UTC

Lumi suffered a delictual liability which caused a harm and damage to his leg. It is a non-pecuniary loss

38628589

2023-04-16 21:26:08 UTC

Willful human conduct, because the damaged was caused by negligence of the teacher. Had the teacher been on sight none of the incident and injury would have occurred.

38628589

2023-04-16 21:28:25 UTC

The act was a casual link because if mr Toby would have stayed on sight, there would have not been any of the incident. He was supposed to ensured safety and ask someone else to be on sight while he went away

38628589

2023-04-16 21:30:56 UTC

Mr Toby breached the law of inloco parentis and his duty of care for the safety of leaners. He was negligent and therefore that cost a leaner’s health and injury. He failed to provide the care and safety

38628589

2023-04-16 21:32:50 UTC

A total negligence. Mr Toby was supposed to provide care and ensuring safety of leaners. Him leaving the sight caused harm and therefore we are to blame him

35177268

nightimboss — 2023-04-17 10:47:17 UTC

The nature and extent of the harm was excessive. broken legs, blindness in one eye, brain damage and fingers removed. by leaving the donkeys unattended to they got scared and ran over a child.

35177268

nightimboss — 2023-04-17 10:49:52 UTC

Willful human conduct, because the teacher did not tell anyone he was leaving the donkeys' unattended. and it lead to almost causing someone their life

35177268

nightimboss — 2023-04-17 10:51:15 UTC

The teacher leaving the donkeys'. the boys firecrackers setting off the donkeys' and then the donkey' going on a rampage.

35177268

nightimboss — 2023-04-17 10:53:06 UTC

The teacher breached his duty to take care of the learners by leaving the donkeys' without supervision. and risking the safety of every learner present at the event

35177268

nightimboss — 2023-04-17 10:53:55 UTC

the teacher is to blame, for leaving the donkeys unattended to.

34273646

2023-04-17 14:20:40 UTC

Lumi suffered from brain damage, had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers and had a blind eye due to sharp rocks which led to pecuniary loss.

34273646

2023-04-17 14:23:10 UTC

Negligence
The harm was preventable but the teacher did not attend to the donkeys so he is to be blamed for the injuries lumi got.

34273646

2023-04-17 14:28:25 UTC

willful human conduct, because the teacher left the donkeys unattended without letting anyone know therefore he was negligence toward the incident.

34273646

2023-04-17 14:33:37 UTC

Casual link, the teachers responsibility and his act of omission was to intend cause harm. if Mr Toby could have acted right by not leaving donkeys without supervision. the harm could have not been there.

34273646

2023-04-17 14:35:40 UTC

Mr Toby breached his duty to take care of the learners by leaving the donkeys without care or supervision this has resulted to the risky safety of Lumi

32704887

2023-04-17 15:35:26 UTC

The harm did occur as Lumi suffered severe injuries. Lumi had 2 broken legs, one broken arm, and crushed fingers, was blind in one eye and he also suffered brain damage. The damage is very serious as Lumi's life expectancy is shortened

32704887

2023-04-17 15:39:57 UTC

The damage was caused by a human because he had the responsibility to make sure that no learner gets injured and that the donkeys are not out of his sight

32704887

2023-04-17 15:43:46 UTC

Even though the act was not the direct cause of the harm. The teacher would have sent one of the learners to get him something to eat instead of leaving the donkeys unattended. The direct cause of the harm is thee fireworks that scared the donkeys off.

32704887

2023-04-17 15:55:32 UTC

Breach of legal duty. The teacher breached his duty of care by leaving the donkeys under no supervision

32704887

2023-04-17 16:04:19 UTC

The fault here is negligence as the teacher did not meet standard of care expected of them. Unfortunately their negligence was Lumi's end of the road as a normal kid.

Lumi has experienced physical and emotional harm as he has two broken legs, crushed finger, and blinded eye. He has to emotionally deal with accepting the situation and not look down to himself as a result of the harm caused to him.

2023-04-18 13:18:20 UTC

37522744

37466542

2023-04-19 09:30:19 UTC

The grade 2 learner experienced both physical and emotional harm because of the incident. Luma physically suffered sever injuries like two broken legs, one broken arm and fingers Wich had to be removed this injuries also caused emotional shock and his life expectancy was shortened.

37466542

2023-04-19 09:34:14 UTC

Mr Toby left the donkey unattended on free will, it was his responsibility to make sure that he leaves somebody on standby with the donkey so that when the donkey becomes frightened they can be calmed down and the incident would have beed prevented

37481800

2023-04-19 20:53:14 UTC

Harm did occur. Lumi suffered multiple serious injuries including broken legs, broken fingers, a blind eye and brain damage. Lumi's bicycle also sustained a great amount of damage. These injuries have drastically changed the way Lumi will live his life.

37282646

2023-04-19 20:53:28 UTC

Harm did occur to Lumi, which include 2 broken legs, 1 broken arm, crushed fingers, one blind eye, as well as brain damage. Lumi was riding his bike when the incident happened. The doctors fear that Lumi might never walk again.

37282646

2023-04-19 20:56:12 UTC

The damage has been caused by a human, however he was unaware of the fireworks that have triggered the incident to take place.

37481800

2023-04-19 20:57:03 UTC

The damage was caused by the actions of a human, Mr Toby. However, he did not know there would be fireworks and therefore I would not classify it as a willful action.

37481800

2023-04-19 20:58:47 UTC

Mr Toby's action was the direct cause of the harm in the sense that if he had not left the donkeys unattended, the donkeys would not have run off when frightened.

37282646

2023-04-19 20:58:50 UTC

It is a direct Cause, for if the teacher did not leave the incident would not have happened and Lumi would still be in good health.

37481800

2023-04-19 21:01:27 UTC

There is a breach of legal duty. It was Mr Toby's duty to supervise the donkey stall and also ensure that the learners in the area are safe

37282646

2023-04-19 21:01:39 UTC

It is a breach of duty as it was Mr Toby's task was to take care and supervise the cart which was placed in his care in order to prevent incidents from happening.

37282646

2023-04-19 21:03:26 UTC

It is negligance as he did not intentionally mean for the incident to happen and cause harm to Lumi or any other person.

37481800

2023-04-19 21:04:05 UTC

The fault in this case is negligence as Mr Toby's intention was never for anyone to sustain injury or for the donkeys to get loose. He went out to get food with the thought that when he got back everything will still be fine, unfortunately that was not the case and Lumi sustained a great amount of injuries

37522744

2023-04-19 21:42:18 UTC

There has been act of negligence as the precautions for preventing the incident were not put into practice. It is quite common that animals react according to what they hear or feel, for an example, in this case they were frightened by the fireworks and made a move on their own without being controlled.

37522744 The incident could be regarded to be casual link as the donkey cart was left unattended and this made it vulnerable to be involved in such an incident.

2023-04-19 21:46:14 UTC

The element of an illegality was encountered when the educator ignored his duty as he should acted as a second parent who is taking care of the learners in the school environment.

2023-04-19 21:50:41 UTC

37522744

The harm was pecuniary due to his bicycle being ruined or damaged and his shirt got torn. Lumi was harmed. This is evident by the severe injuries that he got such as broken legs, crushed fingers,eye which is now blind which was caused by sharp rock. Leading to Non-pecuniary.

2023-04-20 06:24:38 UTC

33515530

2023-04-20 06:33:45 UTC

Wilful human conduct

The donkeys were unattended. Mr Toby left the donkeys unattended as he was hungry. He did not ask someone to atleast ensure the donkeys are tied properly to prevent any cause of damage and guard them until he comes back.

33515530

2023-04-20 06:36:40 UTC

It incident is seen as a casual link. If Mr Toby would have stayed Lumi would have not gotten hurt.

33515530

2023-04-20 06:39:28 UTC

Breach of legal duty. He left the donkeys without any supervision or unattended.

33515530

2023-04-20 06:42:36 UTC

The fault is seen as negligence, he was suppose to ensure that the learners are in a safe place and injures of Lumi would have not been present.

Lecturer feedback: Harm/Loss

annamagrietdw — 2023-04-21 09:06:46 UTC

Indicate what types of damage occurred. Name each one, and give a motivation to "prove" that that kind of damage should be awarded to the learner and / or parents. Name the specific types of pecuniary loss, and motivate each one - were there medical expenses, property damage, loss of income? Prove it from the scenario

Name the specific forms of non-pecuniary (personality) damage and motivate each one - was there pain and suffering, emotional shock, deformity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of health, shortened life expectations? Prove it from the scenario

Lecturer feedback: Act

annamagrietdw — 2023-04-21 09:08:49 UTC

Indicate clearly WHAT the actions were that lead to the harm suffered, and then, whether the act was conducted by a human, and then, whether that human acted willfully. See definition of wilful.

Lecturer feedback: Causal link

annamagrietdw — 2023-04-21 09:10:11 UTC

Indicate, with motivation, whether there is a causal link between the damage (as you indicated in column 1) and the act (which you indicated in column two). See the diagram in the power point that will help you write a meaningful argument that motivates a causal connection.

Lecturer feedback: Unlawfulness

annamagrietdw — 2023-04-21 09:12:18 UTC

Indicate whether the act (which you described in column 2) was an unlawful act. The purpose is to determine whether the actions of Mr Tobie (and / or other parties) are wrong in the eyes of the law. You should state pertinently that there has been a breach of a legal duty, and motivate it by referring to the common law duties (duty of care) as well as the statutory obligations (see the green and orange boxes in the diagram pn the power point). If you cite breach of a statutory duty, cite the relevant legislation. If you cite violation of human rights, support with reference from Constitution.

Lecturer feedback: Fault

annamagrietdw — 2023-04-21 09:14:20 UTC

This is not about "whose fault" it was, as the establishment of a causal link already indicated what action led to the damage. The purpose here is to indicate whether the act was performed with fault. In other words, should the person whose act caused the damage also bear the blame? To answer this, it must be determined whether the act was performed intentionally, or with negligence. To determine whether the act was performed with negligence, the test of the reasonable person must be performed. Each of the 2 questions (reasonable foreseeability and preventability) must be answered with good motivation to "prove" that the action was negligent. Remember that the teacher is measured not only by the "reasonable person" standard, but by the higher standard set for trained teachers, teachers with experience and people who work with children. The "reasonable professional" or "reasonable educator" standard. The blame can also fall on more than one party, for example Mr Toby, the school manager, the governing body or organising committee. Blameworthiness in the case of children, for example those setting off fire crackers, is dependent on their legal status. If they are fully accountable, depending on their age, and their actions caused harm and were unlawful, they can also be blameworthy.

38047012

2023-04-21 16:45:35 UTC

Firstly, Lumi’s bicycle was destroyed in the accident due to the donkeycart rushing over it. Secondly, Lumi sustained serious physical injuries in the accident. She was taken to hospital with severe injuries such as two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers on the right hand which had to be removed and was blind in one eye due to small sharp rocks, she also suffered brain damage due to a severe blow to the head and doctors fear that she will never be able to walk again.

38047012

2023-04-21 16:45:53 UTC

The damage was caused by wilful human conduct because Mr Toby knew that it was his responsibility to look over the stall and make sure that everything was in order. In this instance where he left the stall unattended for, he should have made sure that there was somebody there to take his place to ensure everything would be watched over. Even though he could not have known that the donkeys would get frightened of the crackers this accident could have been avoided if the necessary supervision was present.

38047012

2023-04-21 16:47:00 UTC

In this instance the link is because of Mr Toby. Even though he is not the direct reason that the donkeys got frightened which was because of the boys setting of the firecrackers he had certain responsibilities when minding the stall. He could have taken control over the situation and prevented a lot of what happened to Lumi if he was present when it happened and is therefor irresponsible to leave the kids unsupervised with these animals and attended to his duties.

38047012

2023-04-21 16:47:22 UTC

Mr Toby breached his legal duty to supervise the stall. When the responsibility of attending to children’s safety is given to you it is irresponsible to leave them unattended on account of your own needs. He needs to always ensure their safety, and, in this case, it is not what happened.

38047012

2023-04-21 16:47:46 UTC

The fault in this case is negligence, he never intended for anyone to get hurt when he left the stall to get food. Unfortunately, in this case Lumi suffered under his negligence and sustained very serious injuries.

35965630

2023-04-22 15:00:46 UTC

According to the Code of Conduct: Mr Toby must be held responsible. If he desperately wanted to when to the other stalls for food, he could arrange another person to supervise the donkeys. Then the whole scenario could be prevented.

35965630

2023-04-22 15:03:41 UTC

The damage caused, was little Lumi, whose bicycle got crushed. She who broke her limbs, and who would probably never walk again. There is also Pecuniary loss also. Medical attention is not cheap.

35965630

2023-04-22 15:05:41 UTC

Yes, there is causal link. this could all be prevented, if Mr Toby would not have went off to another stall. The causal link what is caused, is called Negligence.

35965630

2023-04-22 15:07:29 UTC

It is unlawfull to ran a stall with animals, and there is no supervision. Especially, if it is a bazaar, where kids can play around on the grounds. In this case the school grounds. They must feel protected, not scared.

35965630

2023-04-22 15:08:35 UTC

Mr Toby must be accountant for, but he is working for the school, so the school and governing bodies must be held accountant and responsible for.

37273558.

2023-04-23 01:44:20 UTC

Little Lumi's bicycle was smashed, causing damage. She was unable to walk again after breaking her limbs. There is also financial loss. Medical care is not inexpensive.

37273558.

2023-04-23 01:44:59 UTC

Give a detailed description of the activities that caused the harm, then state whether a human was involved and whether the person acted intentionally.

37273558.

2023-04-23 01:45:44 UTC

It is a direct cause because Lumi would still be healthy if the teacher hadn't left, which would have prevented the incident from happening.

37273558.

2023-04-23 01:46:37 UTC

When the teacher neglected to behave as a second parent who is caring for the students in a classroom setting, there was an element of illegality present.

37273558.

2023-04-23 01:49:23 UTC

He was supposed to make sure that the students were in a safe location so that Lumi's injuries wouldn't have occurred, hence the error is viewed as neglect.

38717786

2023-04-24 16:57:23 UTC

Lumi's bicycle was smashed, his legs were both broken and doctors think he will never walk again. One eye was blind due to small sharp rocks, he suffer brain damage and fingers on his right hand were crushed and had to be removed.

38717786

2023-04-24 17:12:12 UTC

Mr Toby was irresponsible because he should had tied donkeys or asked someone to be responsible for the donkeys in his absence, but because of his negligence the donkey move around got frightened and led to injuries on a Lumi. Mr Toby was irresponsible and did not think about safety of the environment.

37486942

2023-04-24 17:17:18 UTC

Harm- Lumi experienced harm from the donkey carts that left her with two broken legs, a broken arm, broken fingers on the right hand and one blind eye.
Damage - Lumi's bicycle was damaged too during the incident, since it was lodged in the between the wheels of the cart.
Loss-medical care is expensive, therefore Lumi's family experienced a loss of money when they had to pay for her medical bills.

38717786

2023-04-24 17:18:38 UTC

As Mr Toby was supposed to be responsible for the donkeys and he had left donkeys under no supervision it led to donkeys look for food and got frightened and ran over a learner which caused injuries, this shows a casual link between Mr Toby's irresponsibility and child injury.

37486942

2023-04-24 17:28:37 UTC

Fault - Mr Toby was at fault, he shouldn't have left his designated working station (Donkey carts) unsupervised when he went looking for something to eat. The school should have communicated better with their employees when can they go to lunch and how could they have gotten help when they needed to go somewhere.

38717786

2023-04-24 17:31:38 UTC

The school environment supposed to a safe environment for learners safety and health, but Mr Toby did not take good measures to ensure safety of learners and that was unlawful of him.

38717786

2023-04-24 17:36:31 UTC

Fault was to be laid on Mr Toby because he couldn't be responsible as he was supposed to be responsible for the donkey carts.

37486942

2023-04-24 17:57:22 UTC

The school was unlawful negligent and could have done better in preventing such an incident from occurring, the school and Mr Toby broke the law by not adhering to the schools act and the South African Council of Educators Act 31 of 2000,which states that teachers have a responsibility to maintain good order and discipline among learners and safeguard their health and sa at any time and place when learners are under their care.

37486942

2023-04-24 18:16:01 UTC

Had Mr Toby stayed with the donkey carts, Lumi might have not sustained severe injuries if the incident occurred under his watch. Also he could have been able to stop the boys from playing with the fire crackers and prevented the incident altogether.

37486942

2023-04-24 18:21:55 UTC

The donkeys acted out of fear that was caused by the fire crackers that were lit by the boys, had the boys refrained from lightning the fire crackers the incident wouldn't have occurred. Mr Toby was supposed to watch the donkey carts, he neglected his duty which resulted in a very bad situation for everyone involved.

38186330

2023-04-25 16:53:09 UTC

The donkeys ran over Lumi leaving her with two broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingers and a blind eye. Lumi's doctors also suspect that Lumi may never walk again and she also she suffered brain damage

38186330

2023-04-25 16:57:21 UTC

The harm was caused by the unwatched donkeys in the same environment as the learners and they got frightened by the fire crackers shot by the boys, which resulted into them running around and running over Lumi. A teacher is to be blamed because he left the donkeys unattended even though he was in the same grounds as the learners, he is negligent. If he was around by the time the fire crackers started he would have saved the learner from being ran by the donkeys.

38186330

2023-04-25 16:59:35 UTC

If Mr Toby was around the donkeys at all times, this terrible incident wouldn't have happened. If the teacher was responsible then Lumi would still be healthy so this was a direct harm.

38186330

2023-04-25 17:02:06 UTC

Learners have a right to a safe environment, away from risk. Mr Toby neglected his responsibility as a teacher to make sure that the environment of the learners is safe from harm and the donkeys are attended

38186330

2023-04-25 17:03:16 UTC

The full blame is to be placed on the teacher. The boys that fired the crackers are not that much to be blamed because if Mr Toby was watching the donkeys then no harm would have happened

Lumia bicycle was smashed ,causing damage.she was unable to walk after breaking he limbs .there is also peculiarly loss and the medical attention are expensive

2023-04-27 13:25:45 UTC

The teacher "Mr Toby" who was left responsible and in charge of the donkeys will be held liable for this occurrence as well as the school because they should have had more teachers or members to be left in charge of the donkeys. Whilst Mr. Tobey went on a short break another teacher could have been there to make sure that this accident could have been avoided.

2023-04-27 13:28:15 UTC

If Mr Toby was looking after the Dockey's such couldn't happened but due to irresponsibility of not making that the dockey wasn't tied up such happened

2023-04-27 13:30:21 UTC

Mr Toby will have to face the consequences by paying for any damage around the school as well as compensation to Lumi. The consequences that he might face are a disciplinary hearing as well as the risk to lose his job.

2023-04-27 13:31:11 UTC

2023-04-30 17:46:55 UTC

There is a causal link. Had Mr. Toby not moved away from the donkeys, he could have calmed the donkeys after the boys fired the crackers and Lumi could not have been injured.

37525387

2023-04-30 18:05:47 UTC

The action that took place was not of willful intent, though it could have been easily avoided. He could have asked someone to take his place before going to the stalls.

37525387

2023-04-30 18:17:03 UTC

Mr. Toby was at fault for leaving the donkeys unattended, and the schools' fault for not having professionals present.

2024-03-28 15:36:43 UTC

41240286_M Fourie

2024-03-28 15:40:55 UTC

The teacher did not intend for the harm to occur, but there was a form of negligence portrayed. Animals cannot be controlled so the possibility of the donkeys going off was a situation to take into consideration. The teacher could have thought about the possibility before leaving the learners alone. Since the harm was foreseeable, it could have been well prevented by asking other teachers to supervise the stall while the teacher went to get food. I think the teacher is guilty of negligence.

43398847

2024-04-02 18:42:53 UTC

Mr Toby was irresponsible and careless about the safety of the learners .A grade 2 learner was deadly injured beyond recognition. He failed to ask another teacher to monitor the Donkeys on his behalf because he could not focus anymore. According the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996.The school teachers must ensure that he learners are safe. Therefore Mr Toby is guilty of intent negligence.

Lumi sustained severe injuries, his two legs broke and one arm, crushed fingers on his right hand which had to be removed, he is blind in his one eye, he has brain damage and Lumi might not be able to walk again. This incident led to to a financial burden to Lumi's parents as they have to settle medical costs and this incident impacts Lumi's future negatively and he might not be able to earn an income due to his injuries.

2024-04-02 19:25:42 UTC

The teacher left the donkeys alone out of free will, he made a conscious decision to leave the donkeys unattended. This action led to the incident that occurred.

2024-04-02 19:29:01 UTC

The damage caused was because of the actions of the teacher. If the teacher had asked someone else such as one of the other teachers to attend to the donkeys or even tied the donkeys up, this incident most likely would have been prevented.

2024-04-02 19:32:52 UTC

The actions of the teacher were unlawful, as he disregarded his responsibility of duty of care of learners and other statutory duty, and the actions of the teacher led to the rights of the learner to be implicated such as the right to human dignity s.10, and rights of children s.28(a) in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 108 of 1996

2024-04-02 19:43:34 UTC

The teacher's actions were negligent, I do not think he intended for the incident to occur. He simply did not take measures to ensure the safety of learners, he breached his duty of care. It was reasonably foreseeable that the teacher's conduct could lead to harm.

2024-04-02 19:51:05 UTC

NG GAOKGETHWE- 41860802

gaokgethwen — 2024-04-03 17:03:07 UTC

Lumi experienced severe physical harms as he suffered 2 broken legs, fingers which had to be imputed out as they were in a bad shape, Lumi became blind due to the small rocks that got into his eyes. He also sustained brain damages which will impact him in future. The medical fees expenses for the incident are extremely high due to the seriousness of the matter. Lumis life is at stake and these injuries will affect his future and dreams.

NG GAOKGETHWE- 41860802

gaokgethwen — 2024-04-03 17:12:33 UTC

Mr. Toby simply left the donkey hawk in respect of getting something to eat because he was hungry. His negligence in failing to observe and harness the donkeys well or to ask someone to kindly observe them while he was out caused the donkeys to be frightened and led them to cause the havoc of a sudden accident, which caused Lumi's life to result in severe pain and disfiguration. Mr. Toby's conduct is deemed unprofessional as it violated his duties of ensuring a safe environment for every individual in the area.

NG GAOKGETHWE- 41860802

gaokgethwen — 2024-04-03 17:16:19 UTC

The incident that occurred was because of Mr. Toby's actions. If he had asked one of his colleagues for assistance in supervision or guarding the donkeys while he went out for a quick meal recap, the unforeseen events would have been prevented.

NG GAOKGETHWE- 41860802

gaokgethwen — 2024-04-03 17:21:23 UTC

It's an unlawful act from the teacher's side. According to the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 8A (2) a public school must take measures to ensure the safety of learners during any school activities.

NG GAOKGETHWE-41860802

gaokgethwen — 2024-04-03 17:25:36 UTC

Mr. Toby's actions were negligent, but he did not intend for such events to occur, just that he did not take the safety measures to ensure the safety of the learners in the environment, leading him to breach the duty oaths.

39458547

asisiphosikhuza10 — 2024-04-04 18:30:59 UTC

Mr Toby left the donkey cart stall unattended and the donkeys ran over Lumi.

39458547

asisiphosikhuza10 — 2024-04-04 18:34:10 UTC

Lumi suffered severe injuries, two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers and blind in one eye. He also suffered brain damage and he might not be able to walk again

39458547

asisiphosikhuza10 — 2024-04-04 18:40:27 UTC

Mr Tobi did not intend for Lumi to get hurt but he was wrong for leaving the donkeys unattended, he should have known that they may run away when unattended

39458547

asisiphosikhuza10 — 2024-04-04 18:41:57 UTC

Mr Tobi did not intend for Lumi to get hurt, he was negligent so he is to be blamed for the damage on Lumi.

NK PITSO 37303317

2024-04-05 08:51:38 UTC

In this scenario several damages did occur. Lumi had two broken legs, one broken arm, crushed fingers, was blind in one eye and the most severe damage was that Lumi also suffered brain damage and could not walk ever again. Lumi suffered non-pecuniary loss. Firstly the broken parts of his body indicates that there was damage to Lumi both physically and psychologically. Broken bones lead to pain and suffering and lastly due to brain damage it could mean shortened life expectancy as well as loss of amneties of life.

NK PITSO 37303317

2024-04-05 08:59:46 UTC

Firstly the act that lead to the harm was the teacher leaving the donkeys without ensuring that they are in a confined safe space that would not cause harm. The act was conducted by the teacher as it was the teacher who left the donkeys due to negligence. There was indeed a willful human act, because the damage was caused by human. If the teacher took precautionary measures before leaving the donkeys then Lumi's incident wouldn't have transpired. The teacher also acted out of free will as he took the decision to leave the donkeys unattended to go and grab something to eat.

NK PITSO 37303317

2024-04-05 09:05:20 UTC

In Lumi's scenario there is a causal link between the damage and the act. This means that if the teacher ensured that the donkeys are in a safe space where they will not cause harm then they wouldn't have ran over Lumi and the harm would have been prevented.

NK PITSO 37303317

2024-04-05 09:11:04 UTC

The act was unlawful, because the teacher was in breach of a legal duty as he left the donkeys unattended. In terms of section 8A(2) of the South Africans Schools act emphasises that it is the schools responsibility to enforce measures that protects and ensures learners are safe during any school activity. This means that if any person is found to be liable then necessary steps should be taken. In terms of section 8A(1)(a)(b) of the Regulations for Safety Measures at Public Schools, The teachers and the school should ensure that learners are safe and protected, but Mr Tobi was negligent as well as the rest of the teachers, because they did not look after the learners or even ensure that the donkeys would not cause harm when left unattended.

NK PITSO 37303317

2024-04-05 09:27:50 UTC

The act was conducted with fault due to the negligence of the teacher on duty although it was not the intent of the teacher for harm to occur. The harm was reasonably forseeable, because Mr Tobi should've thought of external factors such as loud noises that would scare the donkey's as we grow up knowing that animals get frightened easily. This harm could've been prevented only if Mr Tobi decided to place the donkeys in a safe place where they would not cause harm.

41501276

2024-04-05 09:50:59 UTC

Lumi suffered significant physical injuries including broken bones, crushed blindness in one eye, and brain damage.

41501276

2024-04-05 09:57:30 UTC

Mr Toby's actions contributed to the incident. He left the harnessed donkeys unattended while they had access to food.

41501276

2024-04-05 10:04:57 UTC

A causal link exists between Mr Toby's conduct and Lumi's injuries. If Mr Toby had properly supervised the donkeys, the firecrackers wouldn't have terrified them and Lumi wouldn't have been injured.

41501276

2024-04-05 10:11:10 UTC

Mr Toby's conduct of leaving the donkeys unattended can be considered wrongful. As a teacher supervising the donkey cart he had a duty of care towards the safety of those involved including Lumi. Leaving the animals unattended in a situation where they could cause harm creates a wrongful act.

41501276

2024-04-05 10:21:03 UTC

Mr Toby decision to leave the donkeys unattended while they were still harnessed show negligence. A reasonable person in his position would have recognized the potential danger and taken steps to make less severe .

37261940 D Pretorius

deonepretorius1 — 2024-04-05 13:22:26 UTC

Lumi suffered physical damage, he has 2 broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingers on his right hand, which they had to remove, and Lumi became blind in one eye. The damages Lumi suffered take the form of nin-patrimonial loss/damage. Lumi's parents can claim for compensation for pain and suffering and disfigurement.

37261940 D Pretorius

deonepretorius1 — 2024-04-05 13:27:26 UTC

Mr. Toby's acted negligent, he should not have left the stall with the donkeys unattended. He should have asked another teacher to stand in for him, or he could have asked a learner or a colleague to go and buy him some food. A human act led to Lumi getting hurt.

37261940 D Pretorius

deonepretorius1 — 2024-04-05 13:32:05 UTC

There is a link between the injuries suffered by Lumi and Mr. Toby's acting negligent and leaving the stall with the donkeys unattended, even though they're harnessed. If Mr. Toby had not left the stall with the donkeys unattended, he could have tried to stop the running donkeys. He could have told another teacher that he wants to go and buy food then one of them could have stood in for him, but he did not inform anyone that he'll be leaving the stall.

37261940 D Pretorius

deonepretorius1 — 2024-04-05 13:36:04 UTC

Mr. Toby created a source of danger when he left the stall without telling anyone he left, and leaving the stall and donkeys unattended. He should have thought about the safety of the learners if he leaves the stall unattended and one of the donkeys might come loose, but he did not. So Mr. Toby was in the wrong in this case.

37261940 D Pretorius

deonepretorius1 — 2024-04-05 13:45:36 UTC

Mr. Toby is to blame. He did not act in a way a reasonable teacher would have acted. He left the donkeys unattended, a reasonable teacher knows that the donkeys, even though they're harnessed could come loose. A reasonable teacher would have not left the stall. Thus Mr. Toby is to blame for the injuries that Lumi suffered. He puts Lumi and other learners' lives at risk when he left the stall with donkeys unattended.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:03:42 UTC

The incident left Lumi, a learner in grade 2, with serious injuries. Lumi suffered from brain damage, blindness in one eye from small sharp rocks, two broken legs, one broken arm, and crushed fingers on the right hand. Lumi's bicycle was also totally destroyed under the donkey cart's wheel.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:06:01 UTC

The scare that came from some boys nearby setting off firecrackers was the reason behind the incident where the donkey cart ran over Lumi. The boys' behavior in setting off the firecrackers could be regarded as deliberate even though it's not made clear whether it was reckless or intentional because it caused the donkeys to become scared and lose control.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:06:59 UTC

It may be forbidden or illegal to set off firecrackers in a crowded public area, particularly when children and animals are around. Because they can be harmful or disruptive, firecrackers are frequently governed by laws and regulations.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:08:23 UTC

here is an obvious causal relationship between the injuries and property damage caused by the firecrackers being set off. Firecrackers made a lot of noise, and it scared the donkeys so much that they lost control, ran over Lumi, and wrecked their bicycle.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:09:20 UTC

It may be illegal or unlawful to set off firecrackers in a crowded public area, particularly when there are animals and children present. Because firecrackers have the potential to cause harm or disturbance, they are frequently subject to regulations and restrictions.

Bafedile

2024-04-05 15:10:30 UTC

It is possible to hold Mr. Toby, the grade 5 teacher in charge of overseeing the donkey cart rides, accountable for the donkeys' neglect while he went in search of food. A part of the incident was his failure to make sure the donkeys and people around them were safe.

40375544

2024-04-05 18:29:12 UTC

Mr Tobie's actions contributed to the incident, he shouldn't have left the donkey stall alone. He could have asked someone to take care of the donkeys while he went to get food.

40375544

2024-04-05 18:34:45 UTC

It was a duty of the principal to authorize a search to ensure learner’s safety. Therefore before the event started the principal could have asked the teachers to search every learner for harmful objects.

40375544

2024-04-05 18:44:11 UTC

There's a casual link between Lumi's injuries and the negligence of the Principal not doing his/her duty by searching learners' to ensure their safety and Mr Tobie's actions were also negligent because he shouldn't have left the donkey stall alone. He could have asked someone to take care of the donkeys while he went to get food

40375544

2024-04-05 18:53:13 UTC

Lumi had terrible physical injuries which included two broken legs and one broken arm while two fingers were removed from the right hand and became blind in one eye.

40375544

2024-04-05 19:09:36 UTC

The principal not doing his/her duty by searching learners' to ensure their safety and Mr Tobie also leaving the donkey stall without asking someone to take care of the donkeys while he went to get food. I believe they both breached their legal duties.

41336739

2024-04-06 16:22:39 UTC

In the context of this scenario damage did occur. Lumi had two broken legs, one broken arm, a crushed finger and other physical disfigurement. Lumi suffered non-pecuniary loss. The damage is both physical and psychologically. This means that there will be loss of amneties of life and a reduced life expectancy.

41336739

2024-04-06 16:29:42 UTC

The act that led to harm taking place was as a result of the teacher leaving the donkey without ensuring that they are in a safe environment. The act was conducted by the teacher who was negligent. It was a willful human act.

41336739

2024-04-06 16:32:04 UTC

There is indeed a causal link between the act of the teacher and the damage that occur. If things were done differently harm would have been prevented.

41336739

2024-04-06 16:38:44 UTC

The act was unlawful, what was noticed was the fact that it was a breach of a legal duty of care. In terms of section 8A(2) of the South African Schools Act which puts emphasis on the schools responsibility to ensure the learning environment is safe and conducive. If ever damage occurs the teacher is held liable.

41336739

2024-04-06 16:42:27 UTC

The act was conducted with fault as a result of negligence of the teacher who was guarding the learners. If factors such as noise and learners being unaware of the danger of the donkeys were considered then they would have put measures to ensure safety.

38041340

38041340 — 2024-04-09 11:44:11 UTC

Damage: Lumi, a grade 2 learner, suffered severe injuries, including two broken legs, a broken arm, crushed fingers, blindness in one eye, brain damage, and the possibility of never walking again. This constitutes significant physical and emotional harm, resulting in substantial damage and loss.

38041340

38041340 — 2024-04-09 11:44:50 UTC

Conduct: The incident occurred due to the negligent actions of Mr. Toby, the grade 5 teacher, who left the donkeys unsupervised and unattended while he went to search for food. Additionally, the group of boys who set off firecrackers near the donkeys contributed to the frightening situation that led to the donkeys running frantically and causing harm to Lumi.

38041340

38041340 — 2024-04-09 11:48:39 UTC

Causation: While Mr. Toby's actions may not have been intentionally malicious, they were negligent and breached his duty of care towards the students and the animals under his supervision. Similarly, the boys' actions of setting off firecrackers near the donkeys could be considered reckless or unlawful behavior.

38041340

38041340 — 2024-04-09 11:49:27 UTC

Link :Mr. Toby's decision to leave the donkeys unsupervised directly led to the incident where the donkeys ran over Lumi, causing her severe injuries. Additionally, the boys' actions of setting off firecrackers contributed to the donkeys becoming frightened and running uncontrollably

38041340

38041340 — 2024-04-09 11:49:54 UTC

Fault: Mr. Toby's negligence in leaving the donkeys unsupervised and the boys' reckless behavior in setting off firecrackers near the animals demonstrate fault or blameworthiness in contributing to the harm suffered by Lumi.

41169263

2024-04-09 11:56:07 UTC

Lumi het seer gekry as gevolg van Mnr Tobie en die donkies.Daar was fisiese skade buite en binne haar liggaam. Met die verlies van drie vergruisde vingers.

40984494 Prinsloo

nicoleneprinsloo03 — 2024-05-23 09:57:54 UTC

If Mr Toby had stayed and supervised the donkey he could have helped Lumi or prevented the case altogether.