De Jager v Road Accident Fund (2515/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 71 (18 September 2008)

De Jager v Road Accident Fund (2515/2006) [2008] ZAFSHC 71 (18 September 2008)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, any negligence on the part of the defendant's insured driver, Mr. Khambule. The evidence established that the taillights of the trailer were functioning and that the mist was not so dense as to impair the vision of a reasonably careful driver. The court found the plaintiff and her witness unreliable and lacking credibility, noting inconsistencies and probable bias due to their relationship. The probabilities favoured the defendant's version, supported by neutral witnesses. The accident was occasioned exclusively by the negligence of the bakkie driver, L.J. de Jager, who failed to...

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: M De Jager; Defendant: Road Accident Fund; Third Party: L J de Jager
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2008
Case Number
2515/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Merits Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; third party ordered to pay defendant's costs pertaining to the third party notice.
Judges
M H Rampai
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Damages Act, Road Accident Fund Liability, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Apportionment of Damages Act Road Accident Fund Liability 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M De Jager

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

L J de Jager

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's insured driver was negligent and caused the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence against the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the third party, the bakkie driver, was exclusively negligent and liable for the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, any negligence on the part of the defendant's insured driver, Mr. Khambule. The evidence established that the taillights of the trailer were functioning and that the mist was not so dense as to impair the vision of a reasonably careful driver. The court found the plaintiff and her witness unreliable and lacking credibility, noting inconsistencies and probable bias due to their relationship. The probabilities favoured the defendant's version, supported by neutral witnesses. The accident was occasioned exclusively by the negligence of the bakkie driver, L.J. de Jager, who failed to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; third party ordered to pay defendant's costs pertaining to the third party notice.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s action is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is directed to pay the costs to the defendant.