Parents win court battle to claim damages after child killed by leopard in Kruger National Park

The parents of a 2-year-old child who died in 2019 when he was mauled to death by a leopard at the Malelane Camp in the Kruger National Park (KNP) received the green light from the court to proceed with their damages claim against the park.

The father was an employee of the KNP, and he lived at the staff quarters. His wife and child were visiting him at the time.

He turned to the Mpumalanga High Court, sitting in Mbombela, to claim damages from the KNP, but the park noted a special plea in terms of which it argued that the father is barred from suing it by virtue of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA).

According to the KNP, it was an injury sustained on duty, thus the park is not liable to compensate the family.

Acting Judge Zodwa Gumde, however, did not agree. While the father at the time of the incident spoke to the media about what had happened and revealed his name as well as that of his deceased son, Judge Gumde, in the recent judgment issued by the court, only referred to the parents and the child by their initials.

Shortly after the incident, the father explained that the leopard climbed over a tree next to the fence and jumped into the quarters’ yard around 8 that night.

“I was walking to my cottage, and he followed me. I didn’t notice that he was behind me because I left him playing with his mother’s phone. Just when I got to my cottage and closed the door behind me, I heard screams coming from outside,” the father said shortly after the incident.

He explained how he rushed out to see what the commotion was about when he found his toddler hanging from the leopard’s jaws. He said the leopard attempted to drag the child with it over the fence, but it failed and dropped the bleeding child and disappeared into the bushes.

The family rushed him to Shongwe Hospital, but when they arrived, he was already dead. 

The parents, meanwhile, sued the park for damages made up of funeral expenses, pain and suffering (psychological scarring), as a result of the death of their child.

Counsel for the father argued that, in terms of his employment contract, the father was obliged to reside in the staff quarters, thus liable to pay compensation. The park, on the other hand, argued it was an occupational injury.

In countering this, counsel for the father argued that this was not an injury on duty because when the incident occurred, he was off duty.

It was also argued on behalf of the park that the father knew the risks of living in the staff quarters and that he was aware that dangerous wild animals roamed around.  

But Judge Gumede rejected this argument and said that, because of the presence of free-roaming dangerous wild animals inside the park, it cannot be said that this incident was foreseeable.  

“If the person that was attacked and killed by the animal was a visitor and not the child of the first plaintiff, would the defendant escape liability?  In my view, the answer is a resounding no,” the judge said.

The court pointed out that it was not only the father claiming damages, but the mother as well. In turning down the special plea by the park, the parents can now proceed with their claim.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za