Rulten v Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3) SA 600 (D&C)

Rulten v Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3) SA 600 (D&C)

Issue: Whether a company can be held liable for the actions of its employees, even if the employees were acting outside the scope of their employment.

Facts:

In 1979, a company named Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd (Herald Industries) was hired to carry out renovations on a house owned by Mr. Rulten. During the renovations, an employee of Herald Industries negligently damaged a valuable painting that was owned by Mr. Rulten.

Mr. Rulten sued Herald Industries for damages. Herald Industries denied liability, arguing that the employee had been acting outside the scope of his employment when he damaged the painting.

Held:

The Court held that Herald Industries was liable for the actions of its employee. The Court reasoned that the employee had been using company property (a ladder) when he damaged the painting and that this fact was sufficient to establish a basis for liability.

The Court also found that Herald Industries had not taken adequate steps to prevent the employee from using company property in a negligent manner.

Key Facts:

• A company was hired to carry out renovations on a house.
• During the renovations, an employee of the company negligently damaged a valuable painting owned by the homeowner.
• The homeowner sued the company for damages.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the company was liable for the actions of its employee.
• The Court reasoned that the employee had been using company property (a ladder) when he damaged the painting and that this fact was sufficient to establish a basis for liability.
• The Court also found that the company had not taken adequate steps to prevent the employee from using company property in a negligent manner.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Rulten v Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd 1982 (3) SA 600 (D&C) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision expanded the scope of vicarious liability and made it clear that companies can be held liable for the actions of their employees, even if those actions were not authorized by the company.