Santam Bpk v Henery 1999 (3) SA 421 (A)

Santam Bpk v Henery 1999 (3) SA 421 (A)

Facts

Mrs. Henery's husband was killed in a road accident caused by the negligence of another driver. Mrs. Henery and her three minor children were financially dependent on her husband. Mrs. Henery claimed damages from Santam Insurance Company Limited (Santam), the insurer of the negligent driver, for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

Santam denied liability on the grounds that Mrs. Henery and her children were not dependents of the deceased. Mrs. Henery and her husband had been married out of community of property, and there was no maintenance order in place. Santam argued that this meant that Mrs. Henery and her children had no legal right to support from the deceased.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Mrs. Henery and her children were dependents of the deceased, even though they were not legally entitled to support from him.

Reasons

The High Court of Appeal (SCA) held that Mrs. Henery and her children were dependents of the deceased. The court reasoned that the common law definition of a dependent is broad and includes anyone who is actually dependent on another person for support, whether or not they have a legal right to support. The court also held that the SCA Act, which governs the compensation of road accident victims and their dependents, should be interpreted liberally in order to provide compensation to those who have suffered losses as a result of road accidents.

The court found that Mrs. Henery and her children were actually dependent on the deceased for support. The deceased had paid for their housing, food, and other expenses. The court also found that the deceased had a moral duty to support his wife and children, even though he was not legally obliged to do so.

Conclusion

The SCA allowed Mrs. Henery's appeal and awarded her damages for the loss of support she and her children had suffered.

Summary

The case of Santam Bpk v Henery is a significant case in South African law. It is one of the first cases in which the SCA has considered the definition of a "dependent" in the context of the SCA Act.

The SCA's decision in Santam Bpk v Henery is based on the following principles:

• The common law definition of a dependent is broad and includes anyone who is actually dependent on another person for support, whether or not they have a legal right to support.
• The SCA Act should be interpreted liberally in order to provide compensation to those who have suffered losses as a result of road accidents.
• A moral duty to support can be sufficient to create a dependency relationship.

The SCA's decision in Santam Bpk v Henery has a number of implications. First, it means that a wider range of people will now be able to claim damages from the SCA as dependents. Second, the decision means that the SCA will need to be more generous when compensating dependents for the losses they have suffered. Third, the decision means that the SCA will need to take into account moral dependencies as well as legal dependencies when determining whether someone is a dependent.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Santam Bpk v Henery also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on the SCA: The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the SCA. The SCA will now need to pay out more money in damages to dependents. This may lead to the SCA increasing its premiums or reducing its coverage.
• The impact of the case on dependents: The decision is also likely to have a significant impact on dependents. Dependents are now more likely to be able to claim damages from the SCA, and they are more likely to be successful in their claims. This may lead