Dhliwayo v Road Accident Fund (A598/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 544 (7 August 2020)

Dhliwayo v Road Accident Fund (A598/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 544 (7 August 2020)

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver failed to meet the standard of a reasonable road user. The plaintiff was negligent in crossing the road at a non-designated area and failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles. The insured driver was also negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for potential obstructions, particularly pedestrians, on a route known for pedestrian activity. The trial court erred in attributing sole negligence to the plaintiff and failing to apportion fault. The appellate court held that both parties were equally to blame, but the plaintiff contributed more to the negligence causing the collision. Accordingly, the Road Accident...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 544
Parties
Appellant: Dhliwayo Shadrack Mazangwa; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2020
Case Number
A598/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is substituted to apportion liability.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI, S A M BAQWA, J J STRIJDOM
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Road Accident Fund Liability, Motor Vehicle Collision
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Fault Road Accident Fund Liability Motor Vehicle Collision

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhliwayo Shadrack Mazangwa

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver's negligence was the cause of the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the cause of the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in failing to apportion negligence between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver failed to meet the standard of a reasonable road user. The plaintiff was negligent in crossing the road at a non-designated area and failing to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles. The insured driver was also negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for potential obstructions, particularly pedestrians, on a route known for pedestrian activity. The trial court erred in attributing sole negligence to the plaintiff and failing to apportion fault. The appellate court held that both parties were equally to blame, but the plaintiff contributed more to the negligence causing the collision. Accordingly, the Road Accident...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is substituted to apportion liability.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order made on 6 June 2017 is substituted: The Road Accident Fund is liable for 50% of the plaintiff’s agreed or proven damages.