Page 52 - The Circle of Life

* Had a few emails from angry readers on this aspect. Legally, it has to do with

the child being unable to decide for himself and the law protects the weak. I am
not wrong whatever your religious beliefs are which I respect.

Fault & Intention

This means accountability. In other words can you be blamed in law for what
happened? In law youthness and intellectual immaturity as well as mental
disease and intoxication are excuses for liability (in general terms and up to a

point only). We look at your intention when you did what you did to see if you

can be held liable and the test is subjective or what was going on in your mind?
What were you thinking and not so much what the actual circumstances were?

For instance where you are under the genuine impression that your life is in
danger and thus you act on it but later it comes out you were wrong to think so

for actually you were not in danger. That is how the defense of self-defence is
tested in law.

Wrongfulness or unlawfulness

The defendant must have done something wrongful or unlawful and that means
in practical terms was what he did against the morals of the public or reasonable

in the eyes of the society. It is an objective test and not subjective on what he
was thinking at the time but what he did see from a distance. Conduct is usually

wrongful if it causes harm to person or property which is known as the rule of

thumb in delict.

Negligence or culpa

This is where something happens because of an inadequate standard of
behaviour. To do this we look at the well-known reasonable man test which does

not require any exceptional skills or care and how this reasonable fellow would
have reacted in the same circumstances. It is partly an objective and partly a

subjective concept. The reasonable person is placed in the position of the

defendant to see if he would act differently. You had to reasonable foresee the
possibility of harm and taken reasonable precautions against it and did not and
now the harm is caused.

51