Abinero v Road Accident Fund (95211/15) [2019] ZAGPPHC 462 (19 August 2019)

Abinero v Road Accident Fund (95211/15) [2019] ZAGPPHC 462 (19 August 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of the insured driver. The evidence established that the insured driver was stationary for several minutes before the collision, corroborated by both the insured driver and another witness. The plaintiff's version of a sudden emergency was rejected, as it was not pleaded and contradicted by the evidence. The plaintiff did not maintain a safe following distance, failed to keep a proper lookout, and did not exercise the duty of care expected under the prevailing conditions. The court held that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the rear-end collision and that no contributory negligence could be attributed to...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 462
Parties
Plaintiff: Boane Admiro Abineiro; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2019
Case Number
95211/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff found solely responsible for the accident; no order as to costs.
Judges
Phahlane
Legal Topics
Negligence, Rear End Collision, Apportionment of Damages, Onus of Proof
Delict Negligence Rear End Collision Apportionment of Damages Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boane Admiro Abineiro

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver negligently contributed to the cause of the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was solely responsible for the collision.
  3. 3 Whether any apportionment of damages is warranted under the Apportionment of Damages Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence on the part of the insured driver. The evidence established that the insured driver was stationary for several minutes before the collision, corroborated by both the insured driver and another witness. The plaintiff's version of a sudden emergency was rejected, as it was not pleaded and contradicted by the evidence. The plaintiff did not maintain a safe following distance, failed to keep a proper lookout, and did not exercise the duty of care expected under the prevailing conditions. The court held that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the rear-end collision and that no contributory negligence could be attributed to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff found solely responsible for the accident; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is found to be the sole cause of the accident.
  • No order as to costs is made.