This case was heard over the course of several years between 2017 and 2019, and related to a claim for damages arising out of an alleged sexual assault at the hands of the second defendant, while both the plaintiff and second defendant were on duty in the employ of the first defendant.
The principle issues for determination were (a) whether the plaintiff was assaulted by the second defendant, and (b) whether the second defendant acted in the course and scope of his employment with the first defendant, rendering the first defendant vicariously liable.
The court, per Cloete, J, readily held that the assault had taken place as described in evidence by the plaintiff. The issue of the Minister’s vicarious liability was more complex, however, and after finding that the second defendant was in a position of authority over the plaintiff, Cloete, J held that the balance of power between the second defendant and the plaintiff was unequal, that she was vulnerable to the wrongful exercise by the second defendant of his authority over her, and that the Department had at least created the opportunity for second defendant to abuse that power. The first and second defendants were consequently held jointly and severally liable for such damages as the plaintiff could prove that she had suffered in consequence of the sexual assault upon her.
For a copy of the full judgment click here.
