IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between:
ELIZABETH CATHARINA STEYL
JACO STEYL
and
MOTHEO TVET COLLEGE
MEC OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
SIEBERT BADENHORST
ANTON SWANEPOEL
Not Reportable
Case no: 3368/2020
FIRST PLAINTIFF
SECOND PLAINTIFF
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
FOURTH RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Steyl and Another v Motheo TVET College and Others (3368/2020)
ZAFSHC 41 (10 February 2026)
Coram: MHLAMBI J
Heard: 22 JULY 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
representatives by email and released to SAFLI I. The date and time for hand-down is
deemed to be 09h30 on 10 February 2026
Summary: Delict - negligence - death from burn injuries sustained during mechanical
engineering course at college premises - failure to provide safety training, proper
equipment, or prove safety measures pleaded - breach in duty of care- burn injuries direct
cause of death.
2
ORDER
The first, third, and fourth defendants are held 100% liable for any proven damages
suffered by the plaintiffs and for the costs of suit.
JUDGMENT
Mhlambi J
[1] The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from the death of Chris Steyl,
the first plaintiffs son and the second plaintiffs twin brother. The plaintiffs withdrew the
claim against the second defendant.
[2] It is common cause that the deceased was enrolled as a mechanical engineering
student with the first defendant in 2017. On 30 October 2017, he was injured at the first
defendant's campus when a motor vehicle the mechanical engineering students were
working on caught fire. The deceased sustained third-degree burns over 48% of his body.
The fourth defendant extinguished the flames. The third defendant transported the
deceased to the hospital in his own vehicle after obtaining the first plaintiffs permission.
The deceased received emergency care in the hospital's trauma section. He was then
transferred to the intensive care unit, where he passed away on 11 November 2017.
[3] It is not in dispute that the third and fourth defendants acted within the course and
scope of their employment with the first defendant , and that, if the first defendant is not
found liable, the third and fourth defendants are personally liable. The defendants admitted
that they were fully aware of the risks inherent in conducting the mechanical engineering
course for students generally. They had a legal duty to prevent damage and did so by
providing fire extinguishers.
[4] The plaintiffs called five witnesses in support of their case: Dylan Coetzee, a former
student of the lVET College; Jaco Steyl, the deceased's twin brother; Elize Steyl; and Dr
Loubser, the trauma surgeon who treated the deceased in the hospital. The defendants
unsuccessfully sought absolution from the instance after the plaintiffs closed their case.
The respondents closed their case without tendering any evidence.
3
[5] Dylan Coetzee testified that he photographed the premises, and those photographs
were entered into evidence. At the first defendant's campus, no safety training was
provided to students. They were given tools, but were not taught how to use them on
vehicles brought in for repairs. Most extinguishers were not in good working order. Jaco
Steyl testified that he was a former student of the first defendant. He did not witness the
incident but saw a car engine on fire and the deceased covered in flames, which the third
defendant extinguished with a fire extinguisher. The deceased's hair was scorched, and
he appeared to have a light sunburn. The deceased did not wear his full protective clothing
at the time of the incident, wearing only his pants and a black T-shirt. He had put his top in
his locker because he complained about the heat. Although students were expected to
wear their full protective clothing, they wore overall pants and T-shirts. Students did not
receive safety training.
[6] The first plaintiff confirmed that she consented to the fourth defendant taking her
deceased son to the hospital because he had sustained burn wounds. She testified that
his upper torso and head were bandaged. He remained in the intensive care unit until the
day of his death. She was informed that the cause of death was septicaemia.
[7] Mr Potgieter testified about safety measures that should be in place on premises
where dangerous materials are used, in terms of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
85 of 1993. According to him, students should receive proper training and tools and be
made aware of the relevant hazards. The first defendant failed to provide the plaintiffs with
the necessary documentation , including risk assessments for all activities, registers for all
tools and equipment , service records for all lifting equipment, and the Department of
Labour's previous inspection reports for the period 2017 to 2022. Students should not be
Labour's previous inspection reports for the period 2017 to 2022. Students should not be
permitted to work if they were not properly trained, and there was no assurance that the
necessary safety measures were in place or that they had received the required training.
[8] Dr Loubser testified that the deceased was admitted to the Bloemfontein Medical
Clinic on 30 October 2017 after sustaining burn wounds from an explosion or fire in the
engine of the vehicle he was working on. He was admitted to the intensive care unit for
hemodynamic monitoring, ventilator support, and airway protection. His report was entered
into evidence and marked as Exhibit C. He testified that the deceased suffered severe
inhalation injuries and that ventilation was a major issue. He was stable until 10 October
4
2017, when he developed fever and respiratory failure. Staphylococcus aureus
septicaemia was confirmed by blood culture, and he passed away on 11 October 2017.
The report stated that the autopsy confirmed severe inhalation injury. He further testified
that the pathologist's report confirmed his diagnosis.
[9] The application for the absolution from the instance was based on the following:
(a) The cause of death was septicaemia, which absolved the defendants of any blame.
(b) No evidence was presented regarding the cause of the fire and its effect, that is,
causation and its effect.
(c) No evidence was presented to indicate the damage suffered by the plaintiffs.
(d) No case was made out against the defendants.
[1 O] At the outset of the trial, the plaintiff's letter to the defendant's attorneys was
admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1. In the letter, the parties agreed that the
matter would proceed on the merits first, as the merits were separate from the quantum. It
was therefore common ground that the matter would proceed only on the merits and that
the quantum would stand over.
[11] In the amended particulars of claim, the claim was pleaded as follows:
'8.
At all material times thereto the above lecturers/personnel/staff of the First Defendant alternatively
the lectures/personnel/staff of Second Defendant alternatively the Third and Fourth Defendants
had a legal duty towards the deceased during his enrolment and attendance to his course at the
Motheo Bloemfontein campus. The First-Fourth Defendants are experts and specializes in lecturing
and presenting Mechanical engineering courses. The First-Fourth Defendants purported
themselves to be experts in the lecturing and presenting of Mechanical engineering course. The
First-Fourth Defendants as such were fully aware of the risks inherent to the students more
specifically the deceased in conducting to the Mechanical engineering course. The First-Fourth
specifically the deceased in conducting to the Mechanical engineering course. The First-Fourth
Defendants thus had a duty to prevent that damages arise on the basis that it did on the 30th
October 2017.
9.
The lecturers/staff/personnel of the First Defendant alternatively the lecturers/staff/ employees of
the Second Defendant alternatively the Third and Fourth Defendants, were negligent and acted
contrary to the legal duty owed to the deceased.
10.
The lecturers/staff/personnel of the First Defendant or alternatively the lecturers/staff/employees
of the Second Defendants alternatively the Third-and Fourth Defendants:
10.1 failed to observe their legal duty owed to the deceased;
5
10.2 failed to implement such steps as would reasonably be required to prevent the ocurrence of
the incident;
10.3 Failed to take into account the commonly known high rate of similar incidents occurring;
10.4 failed to foresee the risk associated with students working on motor vehicles;
10.5 failed to provide a safe working environment for the students and more specifically the
deceased;
10.6 failed to inform the students and more specifically the deceased of the risks in the relevant
working environment;
1 0. 7 failed to provide safe working procedures for the learning content which the students and
more specifically the deceased was busy with at the time of the incident;
10.8 Failed to have the necessary health and safety measures in place to attend to the said
incident;
10.9 failed to appoint a firefighter and or first Aid with the relevant training;
10.1 0 failed to provide the necessary first aid to the deceased at the scene of the accident;
10.11 failed to contact an ambulance to be dispatched to transport the deceased to the hospital.
11.
Due to the negligence and wrongful breach of the First Defendant's lecturers/ personnel/staff
alternatively the Second Defendant's lecturers/personell/staff alternatively the Second Defendant's
lecturers/personnel/staff alternatively the Third- and Fourth Defendants' duty of care towards the
deceased, the deceased incurred burn wounds and passed away as a direct result thereof.'
[12] In their plea, the defendants pleaded as follows to the relevant particulars of
the claim:
'1 0. Ad paragraphs 8
10.1 it is denied that the defendants:
10.1 .1 had a legal duty towards the deceased;
10.1.2 are experts and specialize in the lecturing and presenting Mechanical Engineering although
the third and fourth defendants are lecturers; and
the third and fourth defendants are lecturers; and
10.1.3 purported themselves to be experts in the lecturing and presenting of Mechanical
Engineering.
10.2 it is admitted that the defendants:
10. 2.1 were fully aware of the risks inherent to the students in general in conducting the Mechanical
Engineering course; and
10.2.2 had a legal duty to prevent damages from arising and in fact took steps to prevent the said
damages by, among others, having fire extinguishers on site.
11 Ad paragraph 9
The contents of this paragraph are denied.
12 Ad paragraph 10
12.1 The contents of this paragraph , including its sub-paragraphs, are denied.
6
12.2 The first and second defendants took reasonable steps so as to avoid the possibility of injury
to students and employees and which steps included:
12.2.1 implementing such steps as would reasonably be required to prevent the occurrence of
incidents in general;
12.2.2 Providing a safe working environment for the students and lecturers;
12.2.3 Informing the students and lecturers of the risks inherent in the workplace ;
12.2.4 providing safe work procedures; and
12.2.5 Having the necessary health and safety measures in place to attend to incidents in general.'
(13] The respondents, therefore, denied negligence and any breach of the legal duty
owed to the deceased. The first and second defendants pleaded that they took specified,
reasonable steps, including informing students and lecturers of the risks inherent in the
workplace , providing safe work procedures, and ensuring the necessary health and safety
measures were in place to address incidents that could result in injury to students and
employees. However, the respondents were unable to provide proof of these particulars
under rule 35(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[14] In his report, Dr Loubser stated that, during the first surgery, the wounds were
debrided with temporary skin coverage , and the patient developed a left-sided pleural
effusion , for which an IC drain was placed. During the second surgery, autologous skin
was transplanted using ReCell to enhance skin growth. The respondents argued that these
two operations required extreme measures to prevent bacterial contamination. It appeared
that the measures adopted were insufficient, as bacteria established and resulted in
septicaemia. 'That being the case', it was argued, 'novus actus was proven, and no
septicaemia. 'That being the case', it was argued, 'novus actus was proven, and no
evidence was led to suggest that the fire caused the death when applying the foreseeability
test, assuming that negligence was proven, which was not'. This argument is without
substance .
[15] The plaintiff argued that Dr Loubser testified that, when calculating the percentage
of the body burned, an additional 10% to 14% is attributed to inhalation burns, especially
7
when the fire is near a victim's face. Once a burn wound reaches the third layer of skin, it
is considered a deep dermal burn and classified as a third-degree burn. A burn injury
affects all organs and triggers an inflammatory response. This inflammatory response can
lead to septicaemia , which is fatal in 80% of patients. The deceased developed a fever,
experienced respiratory failure, and was found to have septicaemia. The respiratory failure
resulted from the lungs' inability to function. The plaintiff contended that if sepsis was an
expected risk of the procedure, septicaemia could not constitute a novus actus
interveniens , as it was a foreseeable consequence of the deceased's injuries.
[16] In De Klerk v Minister of Police, 1 it was stated that:
'Causation comprises a factual and a legal component. Factual causation relates to the question
whether the act or omission caused or materially contributed to the harm. The "but-for" test (conditio
sine qua non) is ordinarily applied to determine factual causation. If, but for a wrongdoer's conduct,
the harm would probably not have been suffered by a claimant, the conduct factually caused the
harm ...
Legal causation concerns the remoteness of damage. This entails an inquiry into whether the
wrongful act is sufficiently closely linked to the harm for legal liability to ensue. Generally, a
wrongdoer is not liable for harm that is too remote from the conduct concerned or that was not
foreseeable.'
[17] When absolution from the instance is sought at the close of the plaintiff's case, the
test is not whether the evidence led by the plaintiff establishes what would finally be
required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its
mind reasonably to that evidence, could or might (not should or ought to) find for the
plaintiff.2 The plaintiff must make out a prima facie case and present evidence on all
elements of the claim to survive an application for absolution from the instance, because
elements of the claim to survive an application for absolution from the instance, because
without such evidence, no court could find for the plaintiff. The inference relied upon by the
plaintiff must be reasonable , not the only reasonable one. Absolution at the end of the
plaintiff's case, in the ordinary course of events, will nevertheless be granted sparingly.
Still, when the occasion arises, a court should order it in the interests of justice . Credibility
1 De Klerk v Minister of Police (2019] ZACC 32; 2019 (12) BCLR 1425 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 1 (CC); 2021
(4) SA 585 (CC) para24-24.
2 Claude Neon Lights (SA) Ltd v Daniel 1976 (4) SA 403 (A) at 409G-H.
8
seldom arises when considering absolution from the instance at the end of the plaintiff's
case.3
[18) At the end of the plaintiffs' case, despite their pleaded case, the respondents failed
to explain how they took steps to avoid the alleged injury to students, as they alleged in
their plea. They also failed to furnish the plaintiffs with the required information regarding
the steps they took from 2018 to 2021 to safeguard the students. I was satisfied that the
plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case against the defendants on the merits, for which
the defendants had to answer, and I dismissed the application for absolution from the
instance.
[19) Having closed their case, the respondents argued that the plaintiffs ought to have
shown that, because of the respondents' negligent conduct, they suffered psychological
injury as a direct result of the deceased's death, which caused them emotional shock. They
ought to have testified to this effect and to the effect that the damage claimed was incurred.
No such evidence was presented. Inspired by Swartbooi v Road Accident Fund
(Swartbooi),4 the respondents argued that, what the plaintiffs did was to lead evidence
concerning the primary victim, not evidence concerning them as secondary victims who
heard about the passing of the primary victim and thereby experienced psychological
trauma.
[20) The court, in Swartbooi, stated the following:5
'Due to the recent recognition of emotional shock as a head of damages in our law, very few notable
judgments regarding the assessment of damages for emotional shock have been handed down,
except Barnard ; Clinton-Parker ; Sauls (supra); and Majiedt v Santam Ltd. From these cases it is
clear that the extent and duration of the psychological consequences induced by emotional shock
are the main factors which weigh heavily with the courts when assessing an amount for general
damages .'
(21] I was referred to two articles: 'Claims for "emotional shock" suffered by primary and
(21] I was referred to two articles: 'Claims for "emotional shock" suffered by primary and
secondary victims' by Raheel Ahmed and Loma Steynberg,6 and 'The IMPACT OF THE
3 MN v BN (2023] ZAFSHC 236; (2023] 3 All SA 809 (FB); 2023 (5) SA 519 (FB) paras 203 and 204.
4 Swartbooi v Road Accident Fund (2012) ZAWCHC 29; [2012) 3 All SA 670 (WCC); 2013 (1) SA 30 (WCC).
5 Ibid para 20.
6 R Ahmed and L Steynberg 'Claims for "emotional shock" suffered by primary and secondary victims' (2015)
78 Journal of Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law 181-199.
9
KOMAPE JUDGMENT ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN COMMON LAW OF DELICT: AN
ANALYTICAL REVIEW Komape v Minister of Basic Education [2020] 1 All SA 651 (SCA);
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA)' by Michael C Buthelezi.7 In the first article, the author commented
on the Court's observation regarding the application of the thin skull rule in Hing and Others
v Road Accident Fund .8 The effect of the principle was not to make a wrongdoer liable for
harm he did not cause. It was clear from this statement that the thin-skull rule should be
applied only after it has been determined that liability must ensue. The severity of the
resulting psychological harm or psychiatric injury and the secondary victim's susceptibility
to harm are both issues relating to the quantum of the claim for emotional shock, not to the
question of whether liability should ensue.
[22] The Komape judgment affirmed that it is necessary to prove psychiatric injury in an
action for emotional shock, as there is no separate action or compensation for pure grief
and bereavement that is not accompanied by substantial psychological lesions.9
[23] In light of the foregoing, I am not persuaded that the respondents have a valid
defence to the plaintiffs action on the merits. I, therefore, find that the plaintiffs have shown,
on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants failed in their duty of care and failed to
take positive steps to ensure the deceased's safety. The injuries sustained by the
deceased were the direct cause of his death.
Order
[24] I am making the following order:
The first, third, and fourth defendants are held 100% liable for any proven damages
suffered by the plaintiffs and for the costs of suit.
JJ MHLAMBI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
7 M Buthelezi 'The IMPACT OF THE KOMAPE JUDGMENT ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN COMMON LAW
OF DELICT: AN ANALYTICAL REVIEW Komape v Minister of Basic Education (2020] 1 All SA 651 (SCA);
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA)' (2022} 43(3} Obiter630-640 .
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA)' (2022} 43(3} Obiter630-640 .
8 Hing and Others v Road Accident Fund [2014) ZAWCHC 15; (2014] 2 All SA 186 (WCC); 2014 (3) SA 350
(WCC).
9 R Kand Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others (2019] ZASCA 192; [2020] 1 All SA 651 (SCA);
2020 (2) SA 347 (SCA).
10
Appearances
For the plaintiffs: N van der Sandt
Instructed by: Webbers Attorneys Inc, Bloemfontein
For the respondents: L Bomela
Instructed by: Odora and Assoc iates, Bloemfontein.