Conradie v Transnet Limited and Another (1735/11) [2016] ZANWHC 37 (17 June 2016)

Conradie v Transnet Limited and Another (1735/11) [2016] ZANWHC 37 (17 June 2016)

The court found that the train driver complied with all legal obligations regarding warning and speed at the level crossing. The evidence established that the whistle was sounded as required and that the train was traveling at an appropriate speed. The plaintiff's husband failed to exercise proper caution by not looking adequately before crossing and by stalling the vehicle on the tracks, which created an emergency situation for which Transnet and its driver could not be held liable. Even if the whistle had not been heard by the plaintiff, the circumstances were such that the collision was unavoidable once the vehicle stalled. The plaintiff failed to establish negligence or wrongfulness...

Citation
[2016] ZANWHC 37
Parties
Plaintiff: Irene Elizabeth Conradie; Defendant: Transnet Limited; Defendant: Kgetleng River Local Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Case Number
1735/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
The action is dismissed with costs, except for costs incurred on 20 April 2016, which are payable by the first defendant.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Negligence, Level Crossing Liability, Wrongfulness, Causation, Duty of Care
Delict Land and Property Negligence Level Crossing Liability Wrongfulness Causation Duty 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Elizabeth Conradie

Plaintiff

Transnet Limited

Defendant

Kgetleng River Local Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Transnet Limited is liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a collision at a level crossing.
  2. 2 Whether the train driver complied with his legal obligations regarding warning and speed.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff and her husband exercised proper caution at the level crossing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the train driver complied with all legal obligations regarding warning and speed at the level crossing. The evidence established that the whistle was sounded as required and that the train was traveling at an appropriate speed. The plaintiff's husband failed to exercise proper caution by not looking adequately before crossing and by stalling the vehicle on the tracks, which created an emergency situation for which Transnet and its driver could not be held liable. Even if the whistle had not been heard by the plaintiff, the circumstances were such that the collision was unavoidable once the vehicle stalled. The plaintiff failed to establish negligence or wrongfulness...

Court Disposition

The action is dismissed with costs, except for costs incurred on 20 April 2016, which are payable by the first defendant.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed with costs.
  • The first defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs incurred as regards the postponement of 20 April 2016.