So you are a South African citizen enjoying a tan at the Sunny Isles Beach in Miami, Florida or having a luxurious holiday in Italy. However, while you're enjoying the tan on the beach or having a luxurious stay in another country, you receive a telephone call from a relative to inform you that your property in South Africa has been destroyed.

Many of our South African citizens are travelling abroad or have moved abroad because of employment while they still have properties or farms in South Africa. Am I insured? And do I have the necessary equipment, protective clothing and trained personnel for extinguishing a fire which might ignite on my farm? These are questions that most farmers or property owners are confronted with when a fire ignites.

The National Veld and Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) makes provision for the prevention and combat of veld, forest and mountain fires throughout the Republic. In terms of section 17 (1) of the Act, every owner on whose land a veld fire may start or from whose land it may spread must ensure that in his or her absence responsible persons are present in the event of fire and who will extinguish the fire or assist in doing so; and also take all reasonable steps to alert the owners of adjoining land.

Some owners or the person in control of the property are often held delictually liable due to the negligent failure to exercise proper control over a fire or to take preventative measures to prevent a fire from spreading to neighbouring property. In such cases the five essential elements for delictual liability in terms of the South African Law of Delict must be proved. These are (a) conduct, in the form of a commission or an omission; (b) wrongfulness; (c) fault,  in the form of negligence or intent; (d) damages, which is the harm suffered by the plaintiff and (e) causation, the causal connection between the harm and the defendant's conduct.

In terms of section 34 of the Act there is a presumption of negligence in these cases. The person who brings civil proceedings must prove that he or she suffered a loss from a veld fire which the other party caused. However the issue of negligence was considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal in MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd v Swart NO 2017 (5) SA (SCA). It was held in casu, that a reasonable landowner was not obliged to ensure that in all circumstances a fire on its property would not spread beyond its boundaries. All a reasonable landowner was bound to do was to take steps or reasonable measures in the circumstances to guard against such an event occurring. If steps were taken and the fire spread nevertheless, they cannot be held liable for negligence just because further steps could have been taken.

In the recent case of Botha and Another v Du Toit and Another (2347/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 20, the court held that there was nothing which the reasonable man would and could have done. There were no steps never mind reasonable steps that the reasonable man could have taken to guard against harm. The defendant's inaction by not responding to the WhatsApp message in this case, cannot be described as unreasonable in the circumstances. It was held further that the reasonable person is not "a timorous faint heart always in trepidation'' of harm occurring" and therefore the court concluded that no negligence was proven.

Negligence rests on two legs, i.e. the reasonable foreseeability and the reasonable preventability of damage. Damage rests where it falls, that is that each person must bear the damage he suffers. Therefore greater care is required when someone works with things which are inherently dangerous such as matches or dynamite. It is common cause that allowing the ignition of a fire on one's property is inherently dangerous.

The associated risk of veld fires in South Africa is substantial. Landowners are therefore required to have good managerial skills and suitable fire-fighting equipment.