B and B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk v Find A Load (2335/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 91 (12 May 2016)

B and B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk v Find A Load (2335/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 91 (12 May 2016)

Both drivers were found to have been negligent in causing the collision. The plaintiff's driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not take reasonable steps to avoid the accident, such as alerting the truck driver or reacting to the truck's movement. The defendant's driver failed to ensure it was safe to turn left across the plaintiff's path, did not make use of his assistant's vantage point to check for obstructions, and moved into the plaintiff's lane without confirming it was clear. The court assessed the degree of negligence independently and found the plaintiff's driver 20% negligent and the defendant's driver 80% negligent. The evidence, including the position and damage to the...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 91
Parties
Plaintiff: B & B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk; Defendant: Find-A-Load
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Case Number
2335/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated; Ruling on Negligence Only
Outcome
Both parties found negligent; apportionment of liability: plaintiff 20%, defendant 80%. Costs awarded against defendant.
Judges
Nicholson AJ
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Proper Lookout, Road Traffic Regulations
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Apportionment of Damages Proper Lookout Road Traffic Regulations

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B & B Eiendomme (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

Find-A-Load

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated; Ruling on Negligence Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle negligent in causing the collision?
  2. 2 Was the driver of the defendant's vehicle negligent in causing the collision?
  3. 3 What is the respective degree of negligence attributable to each party under the Apportionment of Damages Act?

Ratio Decidendi

Both drivers were found to have been negligent in causing the collision. The plaintiff's driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not take reasonable steps to avoid the accident, such as alerting the truck driver or reacting to the truck's movement. The defendant's driver failed to ensure it was safe to turn left across the plaintiff's path, did not make use of his assistant's vantage point to check for obstructions, and moved into the plaintiff's lane without confirming it was clear. The court assessed the degree of negligence independently and found the plaintiff's driver 20% negligent and the defendant's driver 80% negligent. The evidence, including the position and damage to the...

Court Disposition

Both parties found negligent; apportionment of liability: plaintiff 20%, defendant 80%. Costs awarded against defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven damages, subject to further determination of quantum.
  • Costs of this hearing are to be paid by the defendant on an attorney and client scale.