Dausab v Hedimund (SA 24 of 2018) [2020] NASC 30 (7 May 2020)

Dausab v Hedimund (SA 24 of 2018) [2020] NASC 30 (7 May 2020)

The presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur did not operate against the third respondent, whose vehicle was stationary, but against the first respondent, whose minibus initiated the chain collision. The first respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his conduct and did not discharge the evidential burden, thus the finding of negligence against the third respondent was in error.

Citation
[2020] NASC 30
Parties
Appellant: Sofia Dausab; First Respondent: Jelevasiu Hedimund; Second Respondent: Afzel Shahbaz; Third Respondent (cross Appellant): Wilbard Nalupe
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
7 May 2020 11 August 2020 7 May 2020
Case Number
SA 24 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Cross Appeal
Outcome
cross-appeal allowed; claim against third respondent dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Chain Collision Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Res Ipsa Loquitur Chain Collision Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofia Dausab

Appellant

Jelevasiu Hedimund

First Respondent

Afzel Shahbaz

Second Respondent

Wilbard Nalupe

Third Respondent (cross Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo misapplied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in finding the third respondent negligent
  2. 2 Who bore the evidential burden to rebut the presumption of negligence in a chain collision

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur did not operate against the third respondent, whose vehicle was stationary, but against the first respondent, whose minibus initiated the chain collision. The first respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his conduct and did not discharge the evidential burden, thus the finding of negligence against the third respondent was in error.

Court Disposition

cross-appeal allowed; claim against third respondent dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim against the third defendant is dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.
  • Order (c) of the court a quo is declared pro non scripto and is set aside.