Assignment 01
While Anne was visiting her mother, Bernice, for a couple of days, she noticed that Clint was loitering in the neighborhood. Clint’s conduct looked suspicious, and Anne and Bernice learnt that Clint had been released on bail after being charged for serious crimes. Fearing for their safety, Anne and Bernice requested the police and the local prosecutor to have Clint kept in custody. Neither the police not the prosecutor complied with these requests. Shortly thereafter Clint seriously assaulted Anne. Anne now wishes to hold the police and the prosecutor delictually liable. Was the Conduct of the police and the prosecutor wrongful? Discuss in detail and refer to the applicable case law in your answer.
Before deciding whether or not the conduct of the
…show more content…
Was the harm foreseeable?
2. Would the reasonable person take precautions?
3. Did the defendant take those precautions?
There is a legal duty to act positively, on anyone who holds public office, if harm upon the plaintiff is foreseeable. They have the burden of eliminating the risk of harm to the community. In this case, as Clint had previously committed serious crimes and was currently out on bail for a serious crime, Anne and Bernice’s concerns where not unreasonable, as there was strong chance of Clint causing harm to either or both of them.
An act is wrongful usually only if it has some consequence. The police and the prosecutor acted in an unreasonable and legally reprehensible way when they omitted to put Clint into custody, while being fully aware of how great the risk of the harm to Anne and Bernice eventuating was, and what the gravity or seriousness of the harm was likely to be.
A delict (wrongful conduct) is the act of a person which, in a wrongful and culpable way caused loss (damage) to another. There is a causal connection between the police and prosecutor not putting Clint in custody, and Anne being assaulted. Had they put Clint in jail, Anne would not have been assaulted by