Deysel v Road Accident Fund (213/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 19 (19 March 2008)

Deysel v Road Accident Fund (213/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 19 (19 March 2008)

The court found the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness Ferreira to be clear, consistent, and probable, rejecting the defendant's version as improbable and unsupported. The court held that the defendant's insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and entered the intersection when it was unsafe, causing the collision. The plaintiff's estimated speed, though above the speed limit, did not causally contribute to the collision, as the Mazda entered Botha Street when the motorcycle was very close, leaving no opportunity for evasive action. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, liability for the...

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Raymor Deysel; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Case Number
213/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Defendant held solely liable for damages arising from the collision; no contributory negligence found against plaintiff.
Judges
J.D. Pickering
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Onus of Proof, Assessment of Evidence
Delict Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Onus of Proof Assessment of 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymor Deysel

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's insured driver was negligent and caused the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness Ferreira to be clear, consistent, and probable, rejecting the defendant's version as improbable and unsupported. The court held that the defendant's insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and entered the intersection when it was unsafe, causing the collision. The plaintiff's estimated speed, though above the speed limit, did not causally contribute to the collision, as the Mazda entered Botha Street when the motorcycle was very close, leaving no opportunity for evasive action. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, liability for the...

Court Disposition

Defendant held solely liable for damages arising from the collision; no contributory negligence found against plaintiff.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to plaintiff for such damages as plaintiff may prove he has suffered in consequence of any injuries sustained by him in the collision which occurred on 4 March 2006, such collision having been occasioned solely by the driver of motor vehicle number ENC950EC, namely Jaco Geldenhuys.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the trial on the merits, such costs to include the qualifying expenses, if any, of Professor Baart; the costs of the photographs annexed to Professor Baart’s report; the costs of an inspection in loco and those costs which were reserved for decision on Thursday 13 March 2008.