Cous .N.O. obo Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (5115/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 169 (3 October 2016)

Cous .N.O. obo Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (5115/2014) [2016] ZAFSHC 169 (3 October 2016)

The court found that the insured driver grossly exceeded the speed limit in a residential area, which was the sole cause of the collision. Expert evidence established that, had the insured driver been travelling at the legal speed, the accident would have been avoided. The defendant failed to call the insured driver or any witnesses to contest the plaintiff's version, which remained uncontested. The plaintiff, although unable to recall the accident due to injury, was not shown to have been negligent. The court held that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the defendant was found 100% liable for the damages arising from the collision.

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 169
Parties
Plaintiff: Johandi Cous N.O. (curator ad litem for Willem Jacobus Jordaan); Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2016
Case Number
5115/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Trial (quantum Separated; Only Liability Determined)
Outcome
Defendant found 100% liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the collision.
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Onus of Proof
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Contributory Negligence Onus of Proof

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johandi Cous N.O. (curator ad litem for Willem Jacobus Jordaan)

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Trial (quantum Separated; Only Liability Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent and solely to blame for the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the Road Accident Fund is liable for damages arising from the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the insured driver grossly exceeded the speed limit in a residential area, which was the sole cause of the collision. Expert evidence established that, had the insured driver been travelling at the legal speed, the accident would have been avoided. The defendant failed to call the insured driver or any witnesses to contest the plaintiff's version, which remained uncontested. The plaintiff, although unable to recall the accident due to injury, was not shown to have been negligent. The court held that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the defendant was found 100% liable for the damages arising from the collision.

Court Disposition

Defendant found 100% liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the collision.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared 100% liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff arising from the bodily injuries occasioned by the collision on 2 April 2013.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs to date.