Za v Smith

The deceased, Mr Pieralberto Za, slipped on a snow-covered slope at Conical Peak in the Matroosberg private nature reserve and fell over a 150-metre precipice to his death. The reserve was owned by the first respondent, with the second respondent operating it as a commercial nature reserve open to paying members of the public. The appellant, his widow, sued in her personal capacity and on behalf of their three minor children for loss of support, alleging that the respondents wrongfully and negligently failed to take reasonable steps to warn visitors or protect them from the hidden danger posed by icy conditions near the precipice. The High Court dismissed the claim on the basis that causation was not established.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with a declaration that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant and her minor children for loss of support, with quantum to be determined later. The cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case is significant for its authoritative clarification of the distinction between wrongfulness and negligence in South African delict law, particularly in cases involving omissions and dangerous property. It reinforces the constitutional, policy-based approach to wrongfulness and cautions against conflating it with negligence, affirming the role of wrongfulness as a ‘safety valve’ against excessive liability.