De Klerk v Road Accident Fund (04/17901) [2008] ZAGPHC 142 (22 May 2008)

De Klerk v Road Accident Fund (04/17901) [2008] ZAGPHC 142 (22 May 2008)

The court found that the sole cause of the collision was the second defendant's extremely dangerous and reckless u-turn from a stationary position. There was no credible evidence that the insured driver of the truck was negligent or could have reasonably avoided the collision, given the limited reaction time and absence of any warning or indication from the second defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the insured driver, but succeeded in proving negligence against the second defendant. No apportionment of blame was warranted. The second defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven claim and for costs, including those of the first defendant and...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 142
Parties
Plaintiff: De Klerk, André obo Maria Susanna de Klerk; Defendant: Road Accident Fund; Defendant: Dawe, Maria Dagraca
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Case Number
04/17901
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant is dismissed; the second defendant is held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven claim and for costs.
Judges
M Jajbhay
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Apportionment of Liability Expert Evidence

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

Parties

De Klerk, André obo Maria Susanna de Klerk

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Dawe, Maria Dagraca

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver of the truck was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant was negligent in executing a u-turn from a stationary position.
  3. 3 Whether any apportionment of blame is warranted between the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sole cause of the collision was the second defendant's extremely dangerous and reckless u-turn from a stationary position. There was no credible evidence that the insured driver of the truck was negligent or could have reasonably avoided the collision, given the limited reaction time and absence of any warning or indication from the second defendant. The plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the insured driver, but succeeded in proving negligence against the second defendant. No apportionment of blame was warranted. The second defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven claim and for costs, including those of the first defendant and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant is dismissed; the second defendant is held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven claim and for costs.

Orders

  • The second defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the claim proved by the plaintiff.
  • The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs as well as the first defendant's costs in the action.