Long & another v Jacobs

On 27 September 2001, Ms Tania Megan Jacobs, a Grade 8 teacher at Rhodes High School, Cape Town, was assaulted with a hammer by a 13-year-old learner, Bheki Kunene. During a test, she discovered a death certificate in Kunene's journal made out in her name. She reported this to Ms Leslie Hutchings (Head of General Education Band), who took Kunene to the first appellant, Mr Keith Long (the headmaster). Long was informed of the death threats, wrestled the journal from Kunene, and instructed him to sit on a chair outside his office while he called the police and Kunene's mother. Kunene left unsupervised, returned to the classroom to collect his bag, retrieved a hammer from it, and attacked the respondent, causing serious head injuries, a fractured wrist, and a swollen knee. The respondent sued the appellants (Long and the MEC for Education, Western Cape) for damages. The trial court found in her favour, awarding R1,114,685.53. The appellants appealed.

• Whether the appellants owed the respondent a legal duty to ensure her safety and security
• Whether the first appellant's conduct on 27 September 2001 was negligent and causally linked to the harm suffered
• Whether the trial court erred in determining the parties' respective degrees of fault regarding contributory negligence
• Whether the trial court erred in assessing the quantum of damages

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The trial court's judgment awarding damages of R1,114,685.53 to the respondent was upheld in full.

The binding legal principles established are: 1. Where a school principal is informed of death threats made by a learner against a teacher, a legal duty arises to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. 2. It is negligent for a principal who has been informed of death threats to leave the threatening learner unsupervised, allowing the learner to return to class where the threatened teacher is present, when simple precautions (keeping the learner in the office under supervision) could have prevented the attack. 3. An appellate court will only interfere with a trial court's apportionment of contributory negligence under the Apportionment of Damages Act where the trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially, was influenced by wrong principles, misdirected itself on facts, or reached a decision that could not reasonably have been made by a court properly directing itself. 4. An appellate court will only interfere with a trial court's assessment of general damages where there is a striking disparity between the award and what the appellate court considers ought to have been awarded.

Petse AJA made strong obiter remarks condemning the conduct of the trial: 1. The trial lasted many weeks with a record of nearly 6000 pages, with the respondent being cross-examined for nine days. 2. Irrelevant evidence was allowed, including matters relating to the first appellant's personal life that should have been kept private. 3. Proceedings often degenerated into a "slanging contest" between counsel without proper court decorum. 4. The judge emphasized that legal practitioners must properly apply themselves without unnecessarily prolonging litigation, and trial judges must ensure proceedings are limited to relevant matters. 5. Failure to do so causes unnecessary escalation of costs and wastes scarce judicial resources. These comments serve as a warning to the profession about proper conduct of trials and efficient use of court time.

This case is significant in South African law for: 1. Clarifying the legal duties owed by school principals and education departments to teachers in ensuring their safety, particularly in the context of foreseeable threats from learners. 2. Applying principles of negligence in the educational context, particularly regarding omissions to act when threats are known. 3. Confirming the narrow grounds on which appellate courts will interfere with trial courts' exercise of discretion in apportioning contributory negligence under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956. 4. Reaffirming the wide discretion trial courts have in assessing quantum of damages, particularly general damages for pain and suffering, and the limited basis for appellate interference. 5. Demonstrating constitutional obligations of organs of state (public schools) to protect rights to safety and freedom from violence under section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution. The judgment also contains important obiter dicta criticizing unnecessarily prolonged litigation and the failure of counsel and the trial judge to maintain proper court decorum and limit evidence to relevant matters.