Barnard v Road Accident Fund (35094/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1153 (14 September 2023)

Barnard v Road Accident Fund (35094/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1153 (14 September 2023)

The court found that the only version before it was that of the plaintiff, as the defendant did not call any witnesses or contest the documentary evidence. The plaintiff's account was credible and supported by his fiancée. The evidence established that the donkey was previously struck by another vehicle and left as a stationary obstruction in the plaintiff's lane. The unknown driver who failed to remove the donkey or warn oncoming traffic was negligent. There was no evidence that the plaintiff could have avoided the collision, even if he had been driving slower, nor that he should have foreseen the obstruction. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence....

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1153
Parties
Plaintiff: Fredrick Albertus Barnard; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Case Number
35094/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages and must pay the costs of the trial.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Road Accident Liability, Contributory Negligence, Balance of Probabilities, Stationary Obstruction, Foreseeability, Standard of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Liability Contributory Negligence Balance of Probabilities Stationary Obstruction Foreseeability Standard of Care

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fredrick Albertus Barnard

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was negligent or contributorily negligent in colliding with a donkey on the road.
  2. 2 Whether the donkey was previously struck by another vehicle and left as a stationary obstruction.
  3. 3 Whether the unknown driver who failed to remove the donkey from the road was negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only version before it was that of the plaintiff, as the defendant did not call any witnesses or contest the documentary evidence. The plaintiff's account was credible and supported by his fiancée. The evidence established that the donkey was previously struck by another vehicle and left as a stationary obstruction in the plaintiff's lane. The unknown driver who failed to remove the donkey or warn oncoming traffic was negligent. There was no evidence that the plaintiff could have avoided the collision, even if he had been driving slower, nor that he should have foreseen the obstruction. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence....

Court Disposition

The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages and must pay the costs of the trial.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay 100 percent of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is liable to pay the costs of this trial.