PORTWOODvSVAMVUR

[1970]4AllSA186(RA)

Division: RhodesiaAppellateDivision
JudgmentDate: 29June1970
CaseNo: notrecorded
Before: BeadleCJ,MacdonaldJPandJarvisAJA
ParallelCitation: 1970(4)SA8(RA)
.Keywords.Casesreferredto.Judgment.

Keywords

AnimalActiodepauperieNature

AnimalInjurybySavagedogDutyofownerNegligence

DamagesRemotenessMultipleorconcurrentcauses

NegligenceContributoryRescueoperationDogcaughtingate

NegligenceForeseeabilityofharmRemotenessConcurrentcausesofinjury

NegligenceNewcauseRescueofdogcaughtingateUnforeseeablecircumstances

Casesreferredto:

BonningtonCastingsLtdvWardlaw[1956]1AllER615(HL)Applied

DoigvForbes(1890)7SC119Referredto

HughesvLordAdvocate[1963]1AllER705(HL)Applied

HyettvGreatWesternRailwayCompany[1947]2AllER264(CA)Applied

KrugervVanderMerweandAnother1966(2)SA266(AD)Applied

RobertsonvBoyce1912AD367Applied

ScottvShepherd(1773)2WmBl892(KB)Referredto

UnionGovernment(MinisterofRailways)vLee1927AD202Applied

WardvTEHopkinsandSonLtd(1959)3AllER225(CA)Referredto

YorkshireDaleSteamshipCompanyLtdvMinisterofWarTransport[1942]2AllER6(HL)Referredto

Page187of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

Judgment

BEADLE,C.J.:TherespondenttowhomIshallreferas"theplaintiff",suedtheappellant,towhomIshallreferas
"thedefendant",intheGeneralDivisionoftheHighCourtfordamageswhichheallegedhehadsufferedasthe
resultofabitefromthedefendant'sdog.

Thefactsofthecasearethese:ThedefendantwastheownerofaDobermanPinscherdogwhichhehadobtained
inordertoprotecthisfamilywhenhewasawayfromhome.Inthepast,thedoghadbittenatleastfivepeopleand
hehadbeeninthehabitofkeepingitmuzzledbecause,asthedefendantsaid,
"healwaysseemedtobitepeoplewhenIwasnotathome,soformywife'ssakeshefeltmuchbetterwithamuzzleon
it".

Thoughadogisananimalferaenaturaewithanaturalpropensitytobite,itmustbeacceptedthatthisdog
possessedanunusuallysavagenaturewithanunusualpropensitytobiteandthatthedefendantknewthatthis
wasso.(Forthesakeofconvenience,Iwill,fromhenceforth,usethewords"savagenature"inthesenseofa
propensitytobitegreaterthanthatpossessedbythenormaldog).Forsomemonthsprecedingtheaccident,
however,thedefendantstateshehadnotmuzzledthedogalthoughitwasactuallyseenmuzzledthedaybefore
the

Page188of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

accident.Hestatesthereasonwhyhestoppedmuzzlingthedogwasbecausehisfriendstoldhimitwascruelto
havethedogmuzzledand,afterhehadleftitatlargeunmuzzledforafewdays,asitattackednoone,hethought
itwouldbesafetoleaveitunmuzzled.Thedog,however,hadneverbeenmuzzledatnightandithadapparently
neverbittenanybodyatnight,norhaditbittenanybodywhowasnotonthedefendant'spremisesatthetime.
Some,atleast,ofthepeopleithadbittenwerelawfulvisitorswhowerevisitingthedefendantinthedaytime.On
thenightwhentheaccidentoccurred,thedogwasatlargeunmuzzled.Theplaintiffoccupiedthepremisesnext
doortothedefendantandaccesstothestreetwasobtainedthroughadiamondwiremeshgatesomefourfeetin
heightandsomethreefeetinwidth.At4a.m.inthemorning,theplaintiffwasdisturbedbythehowlingofadog
and,ongoingoutside,hefoundthatthedefendant'sdog,apparentlyinattemptingtojumphisgate,hadgotthe
pawsofitsbacklegscaughtinthediamondmeshatthetopofthegate.Itwascaughtinsuchafashionthatits
twobacklegswereupintheairanditstwoforefeetwererestingontheground.Thegatewasswingingpartly
openandthedogwasonthestreetsideofthegate.Whentheplaintiffapproachedthedog,itgavenoindication
ofaggressiveness.Itwasthensilentanddidnotsnarlorgrowl.Hewentuptoitandgotitbythebacklegsbelow
thehocksinanattempttoloosenitspawsfromthemesh.Thishewasunabletodo.Thedog,atthisstage,didnot
showanysignsofaggressiveness.Hethenattemptedtoliftthedogupinordertotakethepressureoffitsback
legssothatitwouldbeeasiertoreleasethepaws.Whenhestartedtoliftthedog,itbithimintherightlegasit
didso,hecaughtitbythescruffoftheneckbut,indoingso,hestumbledoverthedogandthedoggotitshead
freefromhisgraspandattackedhisface.Heputuphishandtoprotecthisfaceandthen(toquotehiswords)
"thedoggrabbedtherightindexfingerofmyrighthandanditchewedonthisfinger,Imanagedtoextractitbypulling.
AssoonasIgotmyfingerfreeItriedtodiveoutofreachofthedog,butbeforegettingcompletelyclearitsucceededin
bitingmeoncemoreontheleftleg".

Fromthis,itisclearthatthedogmadeasustainedandsavageattackontheplaintiff.Asaresultofthebite,the
plaintiffhadtohavehisfingeramputatedandsufferedinalldamagesassessedatsome479.Theplaintiffdidnot
recognisethedogasthedefendant'sdogwhenhefounditstuckinthewiremeshofthegate.Thedoghad,inthe
past,jumpedoutofthedefendant'spremisesbutithadneverbeforebeencaughtinanyfenceorgate.

Theplaintiffbasedhisactionfordamagesundertwoalternativeheads:First,heallegedthatthedoghadacted
contrarytothenatureofitsclassandfrominwardvice,whenitbittheplaintiff.Hisfirstclaim,therefore,wasbased
ontheactiodepauperie.Second,andinthealternative,theplaintiffclaimedthatthedefendantwasnegligentin
allowingthedog,whichheknewtobeof"afierceandviciousnaturewithatendencytoattackpeople",tobeat
largeunmuzzled.Hisalternativeclaimwas,therefore,basedonthelexAequilia.Thedefendant,inhisplea,denied
thatthedoghadactedcontrarytoitsnatureandalsodeniedthathewasinanywaynegligent.Inthealternative,
hepleadedthat,ifhewasnegligent,thedamageswhichtheplaintiff

Page189of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

sufferedwereastheresultoftheplaintiff'sowncontributorynegligenceinattemptingtoreleasethedoginthe
mannerhedidand,thisbeingso,theplaintiffwasnotentitledtorecoverfromhim.Therewasexpertevidencethat
the"majority"ofnormaldogscaughtupinthemannerthisdogwascaughtupwouldhavebittenastrangertrying
toreleaseit.ThelearnedtrialJudgefoundonthisevidencethatanynormaldogcaughtupinagateinthemanner
inwhichthisdogwascaught,waslikelytobiteanystrangerattemptingtoreleaseit.He,therefore,foundthatthe
dog,whenitbitthedefendant,hadnotactedcontranaturamsuigenerisandtheplaintiffwasnotentitledto
recoverundertheactiodepauperie.Onthealternativeclaim,however,heheldthatthedefendantwasnegligentin
allowingthedogtobeatlargeunmuzzled,andthatitwasforeseeablethatthedogmightjumpafenceorgate
and,intheprocess,getcaughtinsuchfenceorgateanditwasequallyforeseeablethat,insuchevent,some
personmightgototheaidofthedogandbebitten.Herejectedthepleaofcontributorynegligenceandaccordingly
gavejudgmentfortheplaintiffonhisalternativeclaim.Againstthisjudgment,thedefendantnowappeals.

WhetherornottheplaintiffshouldhavesucceededonhisclaimbasedontheactiodepauperieisaquestionIleave
openasthispointwasneverarguedbutImentionthat,forreasonswhichwillbegivenlater,Idonotacceptthat
thesavagenatureofthedogplayednopartintheaccident.

Forthedefendant,Mr. Andersenarguedthat,asthedoghadonlybittenvisitorsinthedaytimeandhadnever
bittenpeopleoutsidethedefendant'sownpremises,thedefendantcouldnothaveforeseenthatthedogwould
biteatnightorwouldbitesomeoneoutsidethedefendant'spremises.Idonotthinkmuchsignificancecanbe
attachedtothefactthatthedogbittheplaintiffduringthenightwhereaspreviouslyithadonlybittenpeople
duringtheday.Adog'spropensitytobiteishardlylikelytobedictatedbythetimeofdayinfact,sofarasbiting
peoplecomingontoitsowner'spremisesisconcerned,Iwouldhavethoughtthatitwould,ifanything,bemore
likelytobitepersonscomingontothepremisesatnightthanitwouldpersonscomingontothepremisesinthe
daytime.Thereisnoevidenceonthisbutthisisnotamatterofexpertopinion,astheCourtisconcernednotwith
whatanexpertmightforeseebutwhatanordinarydogowner,likethedefendant,shouldforeseeandIwould
thinkitisamatterofcommonknowledgethatdogswhicharekeptforthepurposesofprotection,asthisdogwas,
areusuallymoreaggressiveandmorelikelytobiteatnightthaninthedaytime.

ThenextpointtakenbyMr. Andersenwasthat,asthedoghadneverbittenpeopleoffitsowner'spremisesbefore,
thedefendantcouldnothaveforeseenthatitmightdoso.Thisargumentrequiresmoreconsideration.Most
animalsdopossessaprotectiveinstinctinrespectofwhattheyregardastheirownterritoryandIhavenodoubt
thatasavagedogwouldbemorelikelytobitepersonscomingontoitsowner'sproperty,whichpropertyitwould
regardasitsown,thanitwouldbetobitepersonsoffthatproperty.This,however,doesnotconcludetheenquiry.
Theissueisnotwhetheritwouldbemorelikelytobitepeopleonitsowner'spropertythanitwouldbetobite
peopleoff

Page190of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation
thatproperty,butwhetherthedefendantoughttohaveforeseenthattherewasareasonablepossibilityofits
bitingpeopleoffitsproperty.Thiswasasavagedogthefactthatitwasusuallykeptmuzzledinthedaytimeis
evidenceofthis.Itwasadogwhichthedefendantknewhadapropensitytobiteinnocentpersons.Itwasadog
whichthedefendantknewstrayedoffhispremises.Inthesecircumstances,Idonotthinkthedefendantwas
entitledtoassumethathisdogwouldhavesuchaniceappreciationoftheboundariesofitsowner'spropertyasto
confineitspropensitytobitetobitingpeopleonlyonthedefendant'ssideofthefence.Thedefendantwasin
possessionofadogwhich,tohisknowledge,wasinthehabitofbitinginnocentpeoplehehadadutytothepublic
toseethatinnocentpeoplewerenotbitten.Mr. Andersen'sargumenthereisasuntenableassomeargumentsuch
asthis:"Iknowmydogalwaysbitesthepostmanandthemilkmanandsometimesbitesthedustman,buthow
couldIbeexpectedtoforeseethatitwouldhavebittenthecomplainant,whowashawkingencyclopaedias,
becauseneverbeforehasmydogbittenanyonewhowashawkinganencyclopaedia."Theownerofasavagedog
withapropensitytobiteinnocentpersonsoughttoforeseethatsuchadogmightbiteinnocentpersonswherever
hefindsthem.Here,dictaofSOLOMON,J.,andDEVILLIERS,J.P.,in Robertsonv.Boyce,1912A.D.367,areapposite.
Atp.379,SOLOMON,J.,said:
"Ifithadbeenprovedthatthedoghadthismischievouspropensity,andthattheownerknewofit,Ithinkthatthere
wouldhavebeenadutyonhisparttokeepananimalofthatnatureunderpropercontrol,andnottoallowhimtobeat
largeinthepublicstreets."

Andatp.382,DEVILLIERS,J.P.,said:
"Theownerwhohasadogthatisaccustomedtobiteorahorseaccustomedtokick,isliableifhedoesnotkeephisdog
orhorseinaplacewherehecannotbiteorkick.If,ontheotherhand,theownercanshowthathehastakenreasonable
precautions,hewillnotbeliable.TheEnglishlawrequiresknowledgeoftheviciouspropensityonthepartoftheowner,
butthisisnotnecessaryunderourlaw.Itwouldbesufficienttoestablishthatthedogwasinthehabitofdoingthe
particularviciousactwhichresultedintheinjury.Fromthattheliabilityoftheownerfollows.Ifthedogwasinthehabit
ofactingthus,theownermayfairlybesaidtobenegligentinnottakingmorecaretopreventarepetitionoftheact
whichmightcausedamage.Areasonablyprudentmanwouldhaveforeseenthatdamagemightresult,andshouldhave
takenprecautionarymeasures."

ItistruethatRobertson'scase,supra,wasdealingwithadogthathadapropensitytochasebicyclesbutthe
principleapplyingtoadogwithanunusualpropensitytobitemustbethesame.Thedefendantknewofhisdog's
savagenatureand,asthepersonresponsibleforitscontrol,heowedadutytootherstokeepadogofthatnature
underpropercontrolandnottoallowittobeatlargeatnightunmuzzled.

ThenextargumentadvancedbyMr. Andersenwasthatthecausacausansoftheaccidentwasthefactthatthedog
gotcaughtinthegateandthatasthedefendantcouldnothaveforeseenthishappeninghewasnotliable.

Thesavagenatureofthedogandthefactthatitgotcaughtinthegatethoughinextricablyrelatedaremore
convenientlyconsideredseparatelyindeterminingthedefendant'sliabilityfortheplaintiff'sinjuries.Iwilltherefore
dealfirstwiththeextenttowhichthesavagenatureofthedogcanberegardedasacauseoftheaccident,and
next

Page191of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

withwhateffectthefactthatthedefendantcouldnothaveforeseenthedoggettingcaughtinthegate,mayhave
onhisliability.

Theargumentofthedefendantthatthecausacausansoftheaccidentwasnotthesavagenatureofthedogisthe
argumentwhichoccasionsthegreatestdifficulty.Mr. AndersenarguedthatthetrialCourtproperlyfoundthatany
normaldogwasquitelikelytohavebittentheplaintiffinthesecircumstancesand,therefore,thedog,inbitingthe
plaintiff,hadnotactedcontranaturamsuigeneris.Hearguedthattherealcausacausansoftheaccidentwasthe
doggettingitsbacklegscaughtintheuppermeshesofthegate,andnotitssavagenature.Hesubmittedthatthe
findingofthetrialJudgethatthedefendantoughttohaveforeseenthatthedogmightgetitsbacklegscaughtin
thegatewasafindingwhichwasnotjustifiedasitisnotacommonoccurrencefordogstogetcaughtingatesor
fencesinthemannerinwhichthedefendant'sdogwascaught.Thecausacausansoftheaccidentwasnot,
therefore,thenegligenceofthedefendant.

Thefirstproblemwhichmustbeconsideredhereiswhatinfactwasthecausacausansoftheplaintiff'sinjuries.
Here,withrespecttothelearnedtrialJudge,Iamnotpreparedtoacceptasfactuallycorrectthatthesavage
natureofthisdogdidnotplayapartatthe"criticalandfinalstage"whenthebitingoccurred.Itistruethata
normaldogmaywellhavebitteninthesecircumstances,butitdoesnotnecessarilyfollowfromthisthatthis
particulardog'ssavagenaturedidnotplayapart.Here,theparticularcharacterofthisdog'sattackontheplaintiff
mustbelookedat.Thedogdidnotcontentitselfwithmerelygivingtheplaintiffabiteitbithimfirstintherightleg,
thenattemptedtobitehimintheface,thenitchewedhisfingersobadlythatthefingerhadtobeamputatedand,
finally,astheplaintiffdivedoutofreach,it,forgoodmeasure,bithimagainintheleftleg.This,despitethe
predicamentinwhichthisdogfounditself,wasnottheactionofanormaldog.Itwastheactionofasavagedog.
Moreover,hadthedogbeenanormaldog,therewasonlyaprobabilityofitsbitinginthesecircumstances
whereas,withasavagedoglikethisdog,thechancesofitsnotbitingwereremoteintheextreme.Idonotsay
thatthedog'ssavagenaturewasthesolereasonofthedogbitingfarfromit.Withrespect,Idonotagreewith
thelearnedtrialJudge'sviewthatthedefendantcouldbeexpectedtohaveforeseenthathisdogmightgetcaught
inagateorfenceinthefashionthatitdidgetcaught.ThediligenspaterfamiliasofRomantimesor"themanonthe
Claphamomnibus"ofcontemporaryEnglandcallhimwhatyouwillisoftencreditedwithremarkablepowersof
foreseeingunusualcalamitiesbutIdonotthinkthatevenhecouldbeexpectedtohaveforeseenthemannerin
whichthisdogbecameentangledinthegatebecausethiswassuchanunusualoccurrence.Thefactthatthedog
gotcaughtinthegateinthewayitdidcanonly,therefore,beregardedasapureaccidentforwhichnooneis
responsible.Intheresult,therefore,itmaybesaidthatthereweretwofactorswhichcombinedatthe"criticaland
finalstage"oftheaccidentwhichresultedinthedogbitingthedefendantthesavagenatureofthedogandthe
factthatitgotcaughtinthegate.Thedefendantisresponsibleforonefactorbutheisnotresponsibleforthe
other.

Page192of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

Onthesefacts,canitbesaidthatthedog'ssavagenaturemust,inlaw,beregardedasacontributorycauseofthe
accident?Toanswerthisquestion,thepartthedog'ssavagenatureplayedintheaccidentmustfirstbecarefully
analysed.Here,twosalientfactsemerge.Firstly,itcannotbesaidwithcertaintythattheplaintiffwouldnothave
beenbittenevenifthedogdidnothavethissavagenature.Itssavagenaturewasthusnotprovedtohavebeen
thesinequanonofitsbiting.Despitethis,however,itcanbesaidwithcertaintythatthedog'ssavagenaturedid,
infact,influencethefiercemannerofitsattackandtheresultinginjuriesweremoreseverethanwouldhavebeen
thecaseifthedoghadbeenanormaldog.Itcanalsobesaidwithcertaintythatthedog'ssavagenature
convertedwhatwasamereprobabilityofitsbitingintoacertaintyofitsbiting.Secondly,itcanbesaidwith
certaintythatthisparticularbitingwouldnothaveoccurredatallifthedoghadnotgotcaughtinthegate.

Thesefactsinvolveacarefulexaminationofthatmostconfusingbranchofthelawofdelictremotenessofdamage
wherethereareconcurrentcausesoftheinjury.

Itistritelawthatasaverygeneralprinciplebeforeanyactofnegligencecanberegardedasbeingresponsible,
eveninpart,foraninjuryitmustbeshownthatthatactwasasinequanonoftheaccidentcausingtheinjuryand,
unlessitcanbeshownthattheaccidentwouldnothavehappenedbutforthatact,suchactofnegligenceisnot
regardedasasinequanon.(SeeMcKerron,LawofDelict,6thed.,pp.117,272andcasestherecited).Onan
applicationofthisverygeneralprinciple,thesavagenatureofthedogcannotberegardedasbeingoneofthe
causesofthedamageasatleastsomeofthedamagemaywellhavebeencausedbyanormaldog.McKerrongoes
sofarastosaythereisonly"oneexception"tothis"rule".Thisexceptioniswherethedamageisbroughtaboutby
twoconcurrentcauseseachofwhich,operatingalone,wouldhavebeensufficienttocausethedamage.(McKerron,
loc.cit.,p.117).Instancesofthisexceptionarenotdifficulttoimagine.Take,forexample,thissituation.AandBare
thedriversoftwomotorcarsapproachingeachotherfromoppositedirectionsonastraightandopenroad.They
collide"headon"andC,aninnocentbystanderonthesideoftheroad,isinjuredinthecollision.BothAandBare
drivingatafuriousspeedandneitheriskeepingaproperlookout.SupposethefactsarethatneitherAnorB,had
henotbeennegligent,couldhaveavoidedtheconsequencesoftheother'snegligence.Ifthesinequanonprinciple
wasappliedtotesttheliabilityofAandB,bothcouldescapebecauseeachcouldpleadthathisownnegligence
wasnotasinequanonoftheaccidentbecause,evenhadhebeendiligent,theaccidentwouldstillhavehappened
asaresultoftheother'snegligence.Itwouldappearthatitisinordertoavoidthisabsurdresultthatthe
exceptionmentionedbyMcKerronisintroduced.Thisexception,however,isoflittleassistanceintheinstantcaseas
thefactsdonotfallwithinitsincetheaccidentwouldnothavehappenedatallifthedoghadnotgotcaughtinthe
gate.Sothisisnotacasewheretheaccidentwouldstillhavehappenedifoneoftheconcurrentfactorscausingit
wasremoved.Withrespect,however,tosuchaneminentwriteronthelawofdelictasProfessorMcKerron,Idonot

Page193of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

thinkthattestsofcausationindelictcanbecircumscribedbyrulesandexceptionstoquitetheextentheappearsto
suggest.IwouldquoteherewhatwassaidbyClerkandLindsell,Torts,12thed.,para.297:
"Testofcausation.TheCourtshaverepeatedlydisavowedscientificandphilosophicaltestsbywhichtodeterminethis
mosttroublesomequestion.Theypreferinsteadtoapproachthematterbroadlyandonacommonsensebasis,anditis
thereforedifficulttoreducetheinnumerabledecisionstohardandfastprinciples.Thereisfrequentallusioninthe
judgmentstothecausacausans,theeffectivefactor,asdistinctfromthe causasinequanon,thefactorwithoutwhich
thedamagecouldnothaveoccurred,butthesephrasesgivenoindicationastohowthedistinctionbetweenthemistobe
drawn.Itisprofitlesstoseekaprecisetestnothingcouldbemoreexplicitthanthejudicialdisavowalofanysuchthing.
Themostthatcanbesaid,perhaps,isthatinanygivencasetheJudge,adoptingacommonsenseapproach,willtryto
pickoutthefactorwhich,inhisopinion,overshadowsallothersinimportance.'Thedecisionofthecase,'saidLord
WRIGHT,'mustturnnotsimplyoncausation,butonresponsibility.'Theveryvaguenessofsuchanideaasthisimparts
considerableflexibilitytothewholeconceptoflegalcausation.Frequentlyitisjustasplausibletoselectoneoutofa
massofcontributoryfactorsasanother.WhenaCourtdoespickoutoneasbeingthe'responsiblecause'thisisthe
resultinsomecasesofacommonsensebalancingofthevariousfactorsinvolved,suchastheirrelative
blameworthiness,orinothercasesofapolicydecision."

IwouldalsorefertothecaseofYorkshireDaleSteamshipCompanyv.MinisterofWarTransport,1942A.C.691.In
thatcaseLordWRIGHT,atp.706,isreportedassaying:
"Thischoiceoftherealorefficientcausefromoutofthewholecomplexofthefactsmustbemadebyapplyingcommon
sensestandards.Causationistobeunderstoodasthemaninthestreet,andnotaseitherthescientistorthe
metaphysician,wouldunderstandit.Causeheremeanswhatabusinessorseafaringmanwouldtaketobethecause
withouttoomicroscopicanalysisbutonabroadview."

Itseemstomethatthisistheproperapproach.

IntheexampleIhavegivenofthesuicidalmotordriverscollidingheadonwitheachother,Ithinkitwouldbequite
profitlesstoexpectC,theinjuredbystander,tohavetotryandprovewhatmightormightnothavehappenedif
oneorotherofAorBhadnotbeennegligent.Theproperapproachsurelyisthedirectcommonsenseapproachof
themaninthestreetand,intheexamplegiven,hewould,withoutdoubt,simplysay:"Ofcourse,theyarebothto
blame."ThisishowIproposetoapproachthefactsofthiscase.

Iamsatisfied,ontakingajuryman'sviewofthecase,thatthedog'ssavagenaturedidplayapartinitsbitingthe
plaintiffandIamnotdeterredfrommaintainingthisviewbythefactthatsuchingenuityasImaypossesscannot
assistmetoarriveatthesameconclusionbyemployinganyoftheacceptedtestsbelovedbylawyers.

Inextexaminewhether,inthesecircumstances,thedog'ssavagenature,thoughitdidplayapartintheaccident,
playedasufficientparttofixthedefendantwithliability.Whereharmoccursfrommultipleorconcurrentcauses,
liabilitydepends"uponwhethertheactinquestionwasamaterialfactorinbringingabouttheresult"(seeMcKerron,
op.cit.,128).LordREID,inBonningtonCastingsLtd.v.Wardlaw,1956A.C.613,said(seep.621),whendescribing
whatwasmaterialinthiscontext:
"Whatisamaterialcontributionmustbeaquestionofdegree.Acontributionwhichcomeswithintheexceptionde
minimisnoncuratlexisnotmaterial,butIthinkthatanycontributionwhichdoesnotfallwithinthatexceptionmustbe
material.Idonotseehowtherecanbesomethingtoolargetocomewithinthedeminimisprinciplebutyettoosmallto
bematerial."

Thedog'ssavagenature,asIhavesaidbefore,causedtheplaintiff

Page194of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

toreceiveinjurieswhichweremoreseverethanthosehemighthaveexpectedtohavereceivedfromanormaldog,
andthesavagenatureofthisdogconvertedwhatwasaprobabilityofbeingbittenintoacertaintyofbeingbitten.
Thesearenotconsiderationswhich,inmyview,fallwithinthemaximdeminimisnoncuratlex.Thisbeingso,the
dog'ssavagenature,inmyopinion,playedamaterialpartintheaccidentcausingthedamage.

Thefactthattheaccidentwasduetotwoconcurrentcausesone,thesavagenatureofthedogandtheotherto
thedogfoolishlygettingitselfcaughtinagatepresentsnorealproblemasbothcauseswereoperatingatthefinal
andcriticalstagewhenthedogbittheplaintiff.Themerefactthatthedefendantwasresponsibleforonecause
andnotfortheotherisanirrelevantconsiderationasisdemonstratedbysuchcasesasthefamiliarsquibcaseof
Scottv.Shepherd,2Black.W.892.Thesecaseslaydownthatwheredamageresultsfromconcurrentlawfuland
unlawfulacts,thepersonresponsiblefortheunlawfulactisjustasliableaseachoftwoconcurrentjoint
wrongdoerswouldbe.(SeeUnionGovernmentv.Lee,1927A.D.202atp.207).Itistruethatthesecasesturnon
theforeseeabilitysofthelawfulactoccurring,buttheynonethelessestablishtheprinciplethat,wherethereisa
sufficientcausalconnection(asIhavefoundthereisinthiscase)betweentheunlawfulactandthedamage,it
mattersnotthatanotherofthecausaecausanteswasanactforwhichnoonewastoblame.

IturnnowtodealwithMr. Andersen'sargumentthat,nomatterwhatpartthedog'ssavagenaturemayhave
playedinthebitingoftheplaintiff,asthedefendantcouldnothaveforeseenthedoggettingcaughtinthegate,
thedefendantisnotliable.Thisargumentisbutavariantoftheargumentthatthedoggettingcaughtinthegate
wasanovusactusintervenienswhichbrokethechainofcausationbetweenthedog'ssavagenatureanditsbiting
theplaintiff.SalmondonTorts,11thed.,p.175,putsitthus:
"Butwherethenovusactuscannotbeanticipatedthechainofcausationisbroken,andtheconsequenceswillnotbe
regardedasdirect,andthenitmattersnotwhethertheinterveningactisoneofwilfulwrongdoing,negligent,orlawful."

Whatisorisnotanovusactusinterveniensinanygivensetofcircumstancesisamostcontroversialsubjectandis
notsomethingwhichcanbedefinedwithanyprecision.(SeeSalmond,op.cit.,166ClerkandLindsell,op.cit.,para.
302,andcasestherecited).LordWRIGHT,inthecaseofTheOropesa,1943P.32,putitthus:
"TobreakthechainofcausationitmustbeshownthatthereissomethingwhichIwillcallultroneous,something
unwarrantable,anewcausewhichdisturbsthesequenceofevents,somethingwhichcanbedescribedaseither
unreasonableorextraneousorextrinsic.Idoubtwhetherthelawcanbestatedmorepreciselythanthat."

ThisdescriptionofanovusactusintervenienshardlyfitsthefactsofthepresentcasenordoIthinkthefactofthe
doggettingcaughtinthegatecanhereberegardedasanovusactusbreakingthechainofcausation.Myreasons
forsayingthisarethese.Althoughitmustbeacceptedthatthedoggettingcaughtinthegatetriggeredoffthe
dog'ssavagepropensitytobite,itdoesnotfollowfromthisthatthedefendantisnotliable,eventhoughhecould
nothaveforeseenithappening.Itisnotnecessaryfortheplaintifftoshowthatthedefendantoughttohave
foreseentheprecisemannerinwhichthebitingoccurred.Itis

Page195of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

notnecessaryfortheplaintifftoshowthatthedefendantoughttohaveforeseenwhatactuallycausedthedogto
bite.Itissufficientthatthedefendantshouldhaveforeseenthegeneralnatureoftheharmthatmightresultfrom
negligentlyallowinghissavagedogtobeatlargeunmuzzled.SeethecaseofKrugerv.VanderMerweandAnother,
1966(2)S.A.266(A.D.),where,atp.272,WILLIAMSON,J.A.,isreportedassaying:
"Thedoctrineofforeseeabilityinrelationtotheremotenessofdamagedoesnotrequireforesightastotheexactnature
andextentofthedamagecf.AmericanRestatementoftheLaw,Torts(Negligence),para.435.Itissufficientifthe
personsoughttobeheldliablethereforshouldreasonablyhaveforeseenthegeneralnatureoftheharmthatmight,asa
resultofhisconduct,befallsomepersonexposedtoariskofharmbysuchconduct."

ThisprincipleiswellillustratedinthecaseofHughesv.LordAdvocate,1963A.C.837.Inthatcase,thedefendant
leftamanholeinapublicstreetcoveredwithatentandsurroundedbyparaffinwarninglamps.Themanhole,
however,wasleftunguarded.Aneightyearoldboyenteredthetentandknockedoneofthelightedlampsintothe
hole.Aviolentexplosionthenoccurredinjuringtheboyseverely.Thecauseoftheexplosionwasamostunusual
andfreakcombinationofparaffingasfromthelampandothersubstancesinthemanhole.TheCourtofSession
heldthatthedefendantoughttohaveforeseenthatasmallboymightplaywiththelightedlampandbreakitand
causetheparaffininthelamptobecomeignited,butthedefendantcouldnothavebeenexpectedtohave
foreseentheresultingexplosion.It,therefore,foundforthedefendant.ThisdecisionwasoverruledbytheHouseof
Lords.Atp.852,LordMORRISsaid:
"InagreementwithLordCARMONT,Iconsiderthatthedefendersdonotavoidliabilitybecausetheycouldnothave
foretoldtheexactwayinwhichthepursuerwouldplaywiththealluringobjectsthathadbeenlefttoattracthimorthe
exactwayinwhichinsodoinghemightgethurt."

Thedoggettingcaughtinthegateseemstometobecomparabletotheunforeseeablepresenceofexplosive
substancesinthemanhole.ThispointisbroughtoutclearlyinthejudgmentofLordGUESTatp.856wherehe
says:
"ConcentrationhasbeenplacedintheCourtsbelowontheexplosionwhichitwassaid,couldnothavebeenforeseen
becauseitwascausedinauniquefashionbytheparaffinformingintovapourandbeingignitedbythenakedflameof
thewick.Butthis,inmyopinion,istoconcentrateonwhatisreallyanonessentialelementinthedangeroussituation
createdbytheallurement.Thetestmightbetterbeputthus:Wastheignitingofparaffinoutsidethelampbytheflamea
foreseeableconsequenceofthebreachofduty?Inthecircumstances,therewasacombinationofpotentiallydangerous
circumstancesagainstwhichthePostOfficehadtoprotecttheappellant.Iftheseformedanallurementtochildrenit
mighthavebeenforeseenthattheywouldplaywiththelamp,thatitmighttipover,thatitmightbebroken,andthat
whenbrokentheparaffinmightspillandbeignitedbytheflame.Allthesestepsinthechainofcausationseemtohave
beenacceptedbyalltheJudgesinthecourtsbelowasforeseeable.Butbecausetheexplosionwastheagentwhich
causedtheburningandwasunforeseeable,thereforetheaccident,accordingtothem,wasnotreasonablyforeseeable.
Inmyopinion,thisreasoningisfallacious.Anexplosionisonlyonewayinwhichburningcanbecaused.Burningcanalso
becausedbythecontactbetweenliquidparaffinandanakedflame.Intheonecaseparaffinvapourandintheother
caseliquidparaffinisignitedbyfire.Icannotseethatthesearetwodifferenttypesofaccident.Theyarebothburning
accidentsandinbothcasestheinjurieswouldbeburninginjuries.Uponthisviewtheexplosionwasanimmaterialevent
inthechainofcausation.Itwassimplyonewayinwhichburningmightbecausedbythepotentiallydangerousparaffin
lamp.Iadopt,withrespect,LORDCARMONT'Sobservationinthepresent

Page196of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

case:'Thedefendercannot,Ithink,escapeliabilitybycontendingthathedidnotforeseeallthepossibilitiesofthe
mannerinwhichallurementsthemanholeandthelanternwouldactuponthechildishmind.'"

(Theunderliningismyown).

ToadoptthelanguageofLordGUESTinthepassageunderlinedtothefactsofthiscase
"Uponthisviewthedoggettingitsfeetcaughtinthegatewasanimmaterialeventinthechainofcausation.Itwas
simplyoneofaninfinitevarietyofsituationswhichmightcauseadogwithasavagenaturetobiteaninnocentperson."

Thedefendantinthiscasecannot,therefore,escapeliabilitybycontendingthathecouldnotforeseeallthe
possiblecircumstanceswhichmightcausethedogtobite:
"Theaccidentwasbutavariantoftheforeseeable.Itwas,toquotethewordsofDENNING,L.J.,inRoev.Ministerof
Health,'withintheriskcreatedbythenegligence'."

(SeeHughes'scase,supraatp.858).

Iftheplaintiff,therefore,wasnotguiltyofcontributorynegligence,heisentitledtorecoverfromthedefendant.

Iturnfinallytoexaminetheactionsoftheplaintiffinordertoseewhethertheycanberegardedascontributory
negligence.Iconsiderthatanyreasonableman,findingadogstuckinagateandhowlinginthemannerinwhich
thisdogwashowling,mighttakesomestepstoreleasethedogfromitsunfortunatepredicament.Theactionofthe
plaintiff,therefore,mightfairlybeequatedtoatypeofrescueoperation.Theapproachtosuchsocalled"rescue"
casesis:Wastheplaintiff'sconduct
"sofoolhardyastoamounttoawhollyunreasonabledisregardforhisownsafety.Bearinginmindthatdangerinvites
rescue,thecourtshouldnotbeastutetoacceptcriticismoftherescuer'sconductfromthewrongdoerwhocreatedthe
danger"?

(SeeWardv.T.E.Hopkins&Son,Ltd.,(1959)3AllE.R.atp.244).Ithasbeensuggestedthatthisprincipleonly
applieswheretherescueoperationisconcernedwithrescuingahumanbeingfromsomeperil.ThecaseofHyettv.
GreatWesternRailwayCompany,(1947)2AllE.R.264,however,makesitclearthattheprincipleenunciatedin
Ward'scase,supra,appliesequallytotherescueofproperty.Whathastobedecidedhere,therefore,is:Didthe
plaintiff'sactionamounttoawhollyunreasonabledisregardforhisownsafety?Thesearethefacts:Whenthe
plaintiffcameuptothedog,itwasquietitdidnotgrowlathimorattempttobitehim.Theplaintiffdidnotknow
thatthiswasthedefendant'sdogwhichheknewhadasavagenature.Whenhegrippedthehocksofthedog's
backlegsandattemptedtoreleaseit,thedogdidnotgrowlormakeanyattempttobitehim.Itwasonlywhenhe
attemptedtoliftthedogthathewasbitten.Thequestionis,therefore,whether,inthesecircumstances,thelifting
ofthedogmayberegardedasanunreasonabledisregardforhissafety.Hadtheplaintiffknownthatthiswasthe
defendant'sdog,orhadthedoggrowledwhenhecamenearit,Iwouldhavethoughtthathisactionsmightbeso
regarded(seeDoigv.Forbes,7S.C.119,perDEVILLIERS,C.J.,atp.112).But,inviewoftheplacidmannerinwhich
thedogbehavedwhenhecameuptoitandfirstattemptedtoreleaseit,Ithinkhemaybeforgivenforbelieving
thatthedogwasnotasavagedogandwas
Page197of[1970]4AllSA186(RA)
ViewParallelCitation

notlikelytobite.Thisbeingso,hisactionsinattemptingtoliftthedoginordertoreleaseitcannotberegardedas
whollyunreasonable.

Inthesecircumstances,therefore,Idonotthinkthedefendanthasprovedthattheplaintiffwasguiltyof
contributorynegligence.Theplaintiffisaccordinglyentitledtorecoverfromthedefendantandtheappealmustbe
dismissedwithcosts.

MACDONALD,J.P.,andJARVIS,A.J.A.,concurred.

Appearances

JCAndersenAdvocate/sfortheAppellant/s

HGSquiresAdvocate/sfortheRespondent/s

PittmanandKerswellAttorney/sfortheAppellant/s

JosephPitlukAttorney/sfortheRespondent/s