Cordier v Road Accident Fund and Another (RAF 227/2016) [2018] ZANWHC 75 (13 December 2018)

Cordier v Road Accident Fund and Another (RAF 227/2016) [2018] ZANWHC 75 (13 December 2018)

The court found that the insured driver was negligent by leaving the vehicle stationary in the emergency lane for an extended period without hazard lights or a warning triangle, especially during heavy rain and poor visibility. The plaintiff was also found to have contributed to the collision by failing to stop when visibility was restricted, not keeping a proper lookout, and driving in the emergency lane under dangerous conditions. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and his witnesses was coherent and credible, and the defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict it. The court determined that a fair apportionment of blame was 60% against the first defendant and 40% against...

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: Rickus Cordier; Defendant: Road Accident Fund; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council for Health North West Province
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
RAF 227/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
The first defendant is liable for 60% of the plaintiff's proven damages, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Judges
Kgoele
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Emergency Lane Obstruction
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Emergency Lane Obstruction

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rickus Cordier

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Member of the Executive Council for Health North West Province

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle stationary in the emergency lane without hazard lights or a warning triangle.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the collision by his own conduct.
  3. 3 How the blame should be apportioned between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the insured driver was negligent by leaving the vehicle stationary in the emergency lane for an extended period without hazard lights or a warning triangle, especially during heavy rain and poor visibility. The plaintiff was also found to have contributed to the collision by failing to stop when visibility was restricted, not keeping a proper lookout, and driving in the emergency lane under dangerous conditions. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and his witnesses was coherent and credible, and the defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict it. The court determined that a fair apportionment of blame was 60% against the first defendant and 40% against...

Court Disposition

The first defendant is liable for 60% of the plaintiff's proven damages, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff 60% of such damages the plaintiff may prove.
  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of two Counsel or of a Senior Counsel if applicable.