Buitendach and Another v Road Accident Fund (3343/04) [2007] ZAFSHC 7 (18 January 2007)

Buitendach and Another v Road Accident Fund (3343/04) [2007] ZAFSHC 7 (18 January 2007)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the first insured driver, Makhanda, who failed to keep a proper lookout and was speeding. The evidence and probabilities favoured the plaintiffs' version that both vehicles were travelling on the same lane, and Smit, the second insured driver, was forced to stop due to a stationary minibus taxi. There was no credible evidence of negligence on Smit's part. The damage to the vehicles and the final rest positions supported the plaintiffs' account. The defendant's witnesses were found less credible, and their version was rejected. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the...

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Bonita Buitendach; Plaintiff: Mia Theo Resette Buitendach; Defendant: Road Accident Fund; Third Party: Willem Johannes Smit
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2007
Case Number
3343/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed on the merits; defendant found solely liable for the collision.
Judges
Rampai
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Motor Vehicle Collisions, Apportionment of Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Onus of Proof Motor Vehicle Collisions Apportionment of 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonita Buitendach

Plaintiff

Mia Theo Resette Buitendach

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Willem Johannes Smit

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the collision caused by the negligence of the first insured driver, the second insured driver, or both.
  2. 2 Is the defendant liable to compensate the first plaintiff for damages resulting from the accident.
  3. 3 Is there any contributory negligence attributable to the second insured driver.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the first insured driver, Makhanda, who failed to keep a proper lookout and was speeding. The evidence and probabilities favoured the plaintiffs' version that both vehicles were travelling on the same lane, and Smit, the second insured driver, was forced to stop due to a stationary minibus taxi. There was no credible evidence of negligence on Smit's part. The damage to the vehicles and the final rest positions supported the plaintiffs' account. The defendant's witnesses were found less credible, and their version was rejected. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed on the merits; defendant found solely liable for the collision.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages as may be proven or agreed upon.
  • The defendant is liable for the plaintiff's costs of the action incurred so far.