Kruger v Coetzee

Kruger was injured when Coetzee's vehicle collided with his. Kruger sued for damages based on Coetzee's negligent driving. The case required the court to define the test for negligence in delictual liability.

• Negligence
• Reasonable person test
• Standard of care
• Foreseability
• Preventability

Kruger's claim succeeded. Coetzee was held liable for damages arising from his negligent conduct.

A person is negligent if a reasonable person in their position would have: (1) foreseen the reasonable possibility of harm; and (2) taken reasonable steps to prevent that harm. The test has two components: foreseeability and preventability. Both must be assessed objectively from the perspective of the reasonable person (diligens paterfamilias). Subjective factors like the defendant's inexperience or personal limitations are generally irrelevant.

Data not available for this record

This is the leading South African case defining negligence. It established the two-stage reasonable person test (foreseeability + preventability) that courts still apply today. The case is absolutely fundamental to understanding fault in delict and appears in virtually every law of delict exam. Every law student must be able to recite and apply the Kruger v Coetzee test.