De Bruin v Road Accident Fund (2637/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 84 (12 December 2019)

De Bruin v Road Accident Fund (2637/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 84 (12 December 2019)

The court found that the insured driver failed to keep proper observation while executing the turn and entered the intersection when it was unsafe to do so, despite having an unobstructed view of the plaintiff's motorcycle for at least 90 metres. The assertion that the plaintiff was travelling at excessive speed was rejected as an ex post facto justification unsupported by the evidence. The plaintiff was found to have acted prudently and reasonably, keeping the insured driver under observation, adjusting his speed, and moving towards the centre line. He was entitled to assume that the insured driver would remain stationary until he passed. The insured driver drove into the path of the...

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 84
Parties
Plaintiff: Jimmy Percy De Bruin; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Case Number
2637/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held solely liable for the collision and ordered to pay agreed damages and costs.
Judges
G G Goosen
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Apportionment of Liability Quantum of Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimmy Percy De Bruin

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the motor vehicle collision.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the full quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff acted reasonably to avoid the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the insured driver failed to keep proper observation while executing the turn and entered the intersection when it was unsafe to do so, despite having an unobstructed view of the plaintiff's motorcycle for at least 90 metres. The assertion that the plaintiff was travelling at excessive speed was rejected as an ex post facto justification unsupported by the evidence. The plaintiff was found to have acted prudently and reasonably, keeping the insured driver under observation, adjusting his speed, and moving towards the centre line. He was entitled to assume that the insured driver would remain stationary until he passed. The insured driver drove into the path of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held solely liable for the collision and ordered to pay agreed damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R2 031 163.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the aforesaid sum within 90 days from the date of this order.