Fabrinso v Road Accident Fund (3676/11) [2016] ZAGPJHC 242 (9 September 2016)

Fabrinso v Road Accident Fund (3676/11) [2016] ZAGPJHC 242 (9 September 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence that the collision occurred on the pavement was uncontradicted, as the defendant presented no evidence to the contrary. The court held that a pedestrian on a sidewalk is not required to anticipate that a vehicle will mount the pavement and strike them. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff was under a duty to keep a proper lookout and walk facing oncoming traffic was rejected, as Regulation 316(2) only applies where there is no sidewalk. The court found no negligence on the part of the plaintiff and held the defendant liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages. The parties agreed to the quantum of general damages at R60,000 and to an...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 242
Parties
Plaintiff: Ridly Steven Fabrinso; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2016
Case Number
3676/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven damages.
Judges
C.J Collis
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Pedestrian Liability, General Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Pedestrian Liability General Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ridly Steven Fabrinso

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unidentified insured driver was negligent in causing the collision with the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages sustained in the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence that the collision occurred on the pavement was uncontradicted, as the defendant presented no evidence to the contrary. The court held that a pedestrian on a sidewalk is not required to anticipate that a vehicle will mount the pavement and strike them. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff was under a duty to keep a proper lookout and walk facing oncoming traffic was rejected, as Regulation 316(2) only applies where there is no sidewalk. The court found no negligence on the part of the plaintiff and held the defendant liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages. The parties agreed to the quantum of general damages at R60,000 and to an...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant held liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven damages.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 100% of the plaintiff’s agreed or proven damages.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount of R 60,000 in full and final settlement of the plaintiff’s claim for general damages arising out of the motor vehicle accident on 26 October 2008.