Whatshot

2026
All
September
2025
All
November
All
2024
All
June
All
April
All
2023
All
March
All
2022
All
2021
All
2020
All
March
All
February
All
2019
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
2018
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
2017
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
January
All
2016
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
January
All
2015
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
DHS
April
All
March
All
February
All
January
All
2014
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
KZN
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
January
All
2013
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All
June
All
May
All
April
All
March
All
February
All
January
All
2012
All
December
All
November
All
October
All
September
All
August
All
July
All

Legal Talk

Legal Talk

Author: Fawzia Khan
Date: 2013-02-28
The game of rugby as a contact sport, coupled with its inherent dangers came under the spotlight at the Supreme Court of Appeal, a few months ago. The matter involved a claim for damages sustained by a rugby player during a scrum, which resulted in that player suffering serious neck injuries.

The incident happened some years ago, in July 2005 during a school match between the under 19A sides of the Laborie High School and Stellenbosch High School. Both players Hattingh and Roux were hookers on opposite teams. Hattingh who suffered the injuries stated that as the forwards were forming for the scrum, Roux used a code-name 'jack-knife', which was a code for the other players to block the channel where Hattingh's head was meant to go.

As a result of the channel being blocked, Hattingh's head was forced down, causing him to suffer a broken neck. The evidence of Hattingh's medical experts was that the injuries he sustained were caused solely because of the manner in which Roux positioned himself in the incorrect place in the scrum.

The player who was being sued, Roux, denied this saying he engaged in the scrum according to the rules of the game. The matter was first heard in the Western Cape High Court, who found in Hattingh's favour. The presiding judge in that court said that on a balance of probabilities "Roux did execute the manoeuvre coded "jack-knife", by forcibly placing his head in the incorrect channel of the scrum, thereby making contact with Hattingh's head and neck and causing the injury to his neck."

Roux then took the matter on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") found that Roux acted deliberately in injuring Hattingh and therefore had the intention to do so.

The SCA dismissed Roux's appeal, as it found the 'jack-knife' maneuver to be in contravention of the rules of the game. The SCA also said this was contrary to the spirit of the game and that by using a code-name, Roux had pre-planned this and it was therefore executed deliberately.

It also found that Roux knew this to an extremely dangerous action and accordingly found that Roux had acted wrongfully.

Know your rights! Email fawzia@thelawdesk.co.za or call 031-5025670 for any legal assistance.