Blom v Road Accident Fund (7274/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 93 (3 August 2010)

Blom v Road Accident Fund (7274/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 93 (3 August 2010)

The court found the plaintiff's evidence evasive and lacking credibility, particularly regarding the speed, lookout, and evasive action taken. The insured driver's version was preferred, supported by the sketch plan and the probabilities regarding the road layout and speed limit. The court held that both parties were negligent: the plaintiff for excessive speed and failing to keep a proper lookout or take evasive action, and the insured driver for not indicating timeously and allowing his vehicle to protrude into the plaintiff's lane. Liability was apportioned at 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the insured driver. The defendant is ordered to pay 40% of the plaintiff's proven damages and...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 93
Parties
Plaintiff: R Blom; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2010
Case Number
7274/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on 40% of his claim; liability apportioned 60% to plaintiff, 40% to insured driver.
Judges
Molopa-Sethosa
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Apportionment of Negligence, Rule 33 4 Separation, Damages Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Apportionment of Negligence Rule 33 4 Separation Damages 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R Blom

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the negligence resulting in the collision.
  3. 3 What apportionment of liability is appropriate between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's evidence evasive and lacking credibility, particularly regarding the speed, lookout, and evasive action taken. The insured driver's version was preferred, supported by the sketch plan and the probabilities regarding the road layout and speed limit. The court held that both parties were negligent: the plaintiff for excessive speed and failing to keep a proper lookout or take evasive action, and the insured driver for not indicating timeously and allowing his vehicle to protrude into the plaintiff's lane. Liability was apportioned at 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the insured driver. The defendant is ordered to pay 40% of the plaintiff's proven damages and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on 40% of his claim; liability apportioned 60% to plaintiff, 40% to insured driver.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay 40% of the plaintiff's proven damages.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of 21, 24 and 25 August 2009.