Authored by Amber Lawlor.
In June 2026, the High Court dismissed a personal injury claim brought by a claimant who alleged that she was injured after a neighbour's English bulldog escaped through a gate and attacked her dogs. The court found that the claimant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants' dog caused her fall and resulting injuries.
The claimant had been walking her two dogs, Max and Marge, both on leashes, when she noticed Charlie, an English bulldog belonging to the defendants, running towards her. She alleged that Charlie ran through her legs, causing her to lose her balance and fall to the ground. According to the claimant, Charlie then attacked Max. In an attempt to separate the dogs, she grabbed Charlie's hind legs but lost her grip and fell backwards onto her buttocks, sustaining injuries. She further alleged that the second defendant merely stood by and watched the incident unfold.
The defendants disputed this version. They accepted that Charlie had slipped out through their gate when the second defendant opened it for her domestic assistant. However, they maintained that the second defendant immediately chased after Charlie, caught him before he reached the claimant and restrained him. According to their version, there was no contact between Charlie and either the claimant or her dogs. Instead, Max became agitated and pulled forcefully on his leash, causing the claimant to lose her balance and fall. Their version was corroborated by the testimony of the domestic assistant, who no longer worked for the defendants and was found to be a honest and an unbiased witness.
The court was faced with two mutually destructive versions and was required to assess the credibility, reliability and probabilities associated with each witness's evidence. While the court found that all of the witnesses testified in a forthcoming and candid manner, it noted shortcomings in the claimant's version. Certain aspects of her account, including her alleged attempts to intervene in the dog fight and falling twice, were not reflected in earlier documentation, including insurance claim forms, the letter of demand and pleadings. The evidence of the claimant's supporting witnesses did not assist in determining how or why she fell, as neither had witnessed the incident itself.
In contrast, the court found that the material aspects of the defendants' version were more probable. It accepted that the second defendant had managed to restrain Charlie before he reached the claimant or her dogs, and that Max's wriggling on his leash caused the claimant to lose her balance and fall. Under cross-examination the second defendant stood firm on her version, including that there was no contact between Charlie and the claimant or her dogs.
The court concluded that the claimant had failed to discharge the onus resting upon her to prove that Charlie caused her injuries. Her claim was dismissed with costs.
This judgment serves as a reminder that sympathy for an injured claimant cannot replace evidence. Where competing versions of events exist, courts will carefully evaluate consistency, credibility, reliability and the inherent probabilities before imposing liability. Claimants bear the onus of establishing causation on a balance of probabilities, and where the evidence does not support their version or a prior version, even unfortunate incidents will not result in a successful claim.
Rivett v Blom and Another (2023/118280) [2026] ZAGPJHC 647 (10 June 2026)