Scribd
Upload
218 views11 pages

Minister Van Polisie V Ewels (1975)

The document discusses the legal duty of police officers under South African law, noting general rules that there is no duty to protect others from harm or rescue them even if assistance is easy, but that exceptions exist such as where a protective relationship exists or a person occupies a public office imposing duties to act. It also provides a hypothetical scenario questioning the potential liability of a police officer and doctor who fail to intervene during a stabbing at a store.

Uploaded by

2767887
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
218 views11 pages

Minister Van Polisie V Ewels (1975)

The document discusses the legal duty of police officers under South African law, noting general rules that there is no duty to protect others from harm or rescue them even if assistance is easy, but that exceptions exist such as where a protective relationship exists or a person occupies a public office imposing duties to act. It also provides a hypothetical scenario questioning the potential liability of a police officer and doctor who fail to intervene during a stabbing at a store.

Uploaded by

2767887
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

From the title of this case, what is

something that you notice?

Minister van Polisie v Ewels


(1975)
The legal duty of policeman
Facts

?
The general duty to prevent harm on another?
General rules:
There is NO legal duty:

-to protect from harm (even if assistance would be easy)

-to rescue (even if rescue would be easy)

-to render reasonable aid in case of danger

-inform the police of the commission of a crime

-rescue a drowning person


Exceptions to the general rule
1) Prior conduct/previous positive act
2) Where a person has control of a potentially dangerous thing or animal
3) Where a protective or special relationship exists between the parties
4) Where a person occupies a public or quasi-public office or calling which imposes on him or her a
duty to act
5) Where statute/common law/court order imposes a legal duty
6) Where contract or other undertaking (agreement) imposes a legal duty

These exceptions to the general rule are merely crystallised forms of the legal convictions of the community
which is the general standard for determining unlawfulness.
Where do these exceptions stem from?
Ratio?
Which exception category does this case fall under?
Decision?
Scenario time!
Captain X, a police officer, has been working for the SAPS for the past 20 years. After a full day and week of
stopping crime in the heat of Braamfontein summer, X knocks off work. X drives home, grabs the TV remote,
gets comfy in his Lazy Boy recliner, puts his feet up and turns on the TV. He sees a Heineken advertisement for ice
cold beer and decides that a beer would be the perfect way to begin his weekend. He drives to Spar and grabs a 6
pack of beers. While paying at the till, he notices Y trying to get past security with a bag of groceries that had not
been paid for. The security officer and Y begin to scuffle on the ground. X watches and does not intervene. After a
minute of scuffling on the floor, Y pulls out a knife and threatens to stab the security officer. X still watches from a
distance - he feels that intervening might bring him harm and he left his service pistol at home. Other shoppers
also stand by, watching by doing nothing. The security officer tries to disarm Y but is stabbed in the neck. The
security officer falls to the ground and Y escapes through the doors. One spectator, a qualified doctor, quickly
leaves the shop as he/she just wants to get home and relax. The security officer dies a few minutes later.
1. Can Captain X be held liable for the death of the
security officer? (Assume all requirements for
liability are proved besides conduct)
2. Can the doctor be held liable for the death of the
security officer? (Assume all requirements for
liability are proved besides conduct)
3. Discuss the liability of other bystanders.

You might also like