On 13 October 2014, two Grade 12 learners drowned while attending a matric revision camp organised by Luhlasa High School at a Rotary campsite in Strandfontein. Their parents instituted delictual claims against the Western Cape Department of Education, alleging that the negligence of the school's staff caused the deaths of their children.
At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants successfully applied for absolution from the instance on the basis that the evidence failed to establish a prima facie case on all elements of the delict.
The court reaffirmed the applicable test at the stage of absolution: not whether the plaintiffs had proven their case on a balance of probabilities but whether there was evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably, could find in their favour. This requires a prima facie evidentiary basis for each element of the delict, namely conduct, wrongfulness, negligence, causation and harm.
The claim failed primarily on the element of negligence, specifically foreseeability. The court emphasised that foreseeability must be established on the evidence and cannot be inferred merely from the occurrence of harm. The reasonable person is not endowed with hindsight; liability is assessed with reference to what could reasonably have been anticipated at the time.
The plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that a reasonable person in the defendants' position would have foreseen the specific risk that materialised, namely, that senior learners would deliberately disobey express instructions, access the pool at night and drown under unknown circumstances. The evidence did not support this inference. It is insufficient to rely on a generalised risk; the particular harm, or a closely related class of harm, must have been reasonably foreseeable.
Even if foreseeability had been established, the plaintiffs were required to identify the additional reasonable steps that the defendants ought to have taken and failed to take. The undisputed evidence showed that the school had prohibited swimming, issued repeated warnings, conducted supervision rounds, and ensured that responsible adults remained on site. No evidence was led to identify further measures that were both reasonable and required. A plaintiff must do more than assert that additional precautions were possible; the evidentiary basis for such measures must be established. The failure to do so was fatal to the claim.
Causation presented a further difficulty. The precise circumstances of the drowning were unknown and in the absence of proven facts to support a causal inference, the court declined to speculate. The mere possibility of negligence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
As a general principle, a higher standard of care is required where minors are involved, under the doctrine of in loco parentis. The court accepted that this duty applies but held that it does not require constant or exhaustive supervision, particularly in relation to older learners.
The judgment serves as a clear reminder of the evidentiary discipline required in delictual claims: foreseeability must be established with specificity; reasonable preventative measures must be clearly identified; and causal inferences must be grounded in proven facts rather than conjecture.
