Buthelezi v Poorter

Buthelezi was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving Poorter. There were questions about whether Poorter's conduct actually caused Buthelezi's injuries, or whether the injuries would have occurred anyway due to other factors. The case required the court to clarify the test for factual causation in delict.

• Causation
• Factual causation
• But-for test
• Conditio sine qua non
• Proof of causation

Factual causation was proved. Combined with the other elements of delict (conduct, wrongfulness, fault, and harm), Poorter was held liable for damages.

Factual causation is established using the but-for test (conditio sine qua non): but for the defendant's conduct, would the plaintiff's harm have occurred? If the answer is no - the harm would not have occurred - then the defendant's conduct is a factual cause of the harm. The test asks whether the defendant's conduct was a necessary condition for the harm. The plaintiff bears the onus of proving factual causation on a balance of probabilities.

Data not available for this record

This case established the but-for test for factual causation in South African delict. It clarified how courts determine whether a defendant's conduct actually caused the plaintiff's harm. Understanding factual causation (versus legal causation) is essential for delict problem questions, and this case provides the foundational test.