Doubell v Road Accident Fund (1082/2011) [2012] ZAECPEHC 77 (18 October 2012)

Doubell v Road Accident Fund (1082/2011) [2012] ZAECPEHC 77 (18 October 2012)

The court found the insured driver to be negligent in the manner he drove, having created an impression he would turn right and then veered left without checking for vehicles behind him, failing in his duty to ensure it was safe to turn. The insured driver was an unreliable witness and could not dispute key aspects of the evidence. No contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff; the only evidence regarding the plaintiff's driving was that he drove normally, and the defendant's reliance on res ipsa loquitur was not supported by sufficient facts. The plaintiff's failure to testify did not justify a negative inference in the absence of evidence of negligence. Judgment was...

Citation
[2012] ZAECPEHC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: Juan-Pierre Gerhardus Doubell; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2012
Case Number
1082/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Determination of Negligence (merits Only; Quantum Separated)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant liable for 100% of proven damages and costs.
Judges
N Dambuza
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Onus of Proof, Res Ipsa Loquitur
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Contributory Negligence Onus of Proof Res Ipsa Loquitur

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juan-Pierre Gerhardus Doubell

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Determination of Negligence (merits Only; Quantum Separated)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the manner he drove his motorcycle.
  3. 3 Whether any negative inference should be drawn from the plaintiff's failure to testify.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the insured driver to be negligent in the manner he drove, having created an impression he would turn right and then veered left without checking for vehicles behind him, failing in his duty to ensure it was safe to turn. The insured driver was an unreliable witness and could not dispute key aspects of the evidence. No contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff; the only evidence regarding the plaintiff's driving was that he drove normally, and the defendant's reliance on res ipsa loquitur was not supported by sufficient facts. The plaintiff's failure to testify did not justify a negative inference in the absence of evidence of negligence. Judgment was...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant liable for 100% of proven damages and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may prove to have suffered as a result of the collision on 20 June 2009.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of trial, including the costs of the photographs contained in Exhibits A to E.