Graceffa v Road Accident Fund (4124/06) [2009] ZAGPPHC 178 (23 March 2009)

Graceffa v Road Accident Fund (4124/06) [2009] ZAGPPHC 178 (23 March 2009)

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout when crossing the intersection, despite the robot being green for him. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and admitted to only seeing the plaintiff immediately before impact. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act, the court apportioned liability at 20% to the plaintiff and 80% to the insured driver, holding the defendant liable for 80% of the plaintiff's damages.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 178
Parties
Plaintiff: A Graceffa; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2009
Case Number
4124/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination After Quantum Settled
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for 80% of his damages, with liability apportioned 80% to the defendant and 20% to the plaintiff.
Judges
K Makhafola
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Damages, Negligence, Pedestrian Collision, Contributory Negligence
Delict Apportionment of Damages Negligence Pedestrian Collision Contributory Negligence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Graceffa

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination After Quantum Settled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in colliding with the plaintiff pedestrian.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in crossing the intersection.
  3. 3 How liability should be apportioned between the parties under the Apportionment of Damages Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout when crossing the intersection, despite the robot being green for him. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and admitted to only seeing the plaintiff immediately before impact. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act, the court apportioned liability at 20% to the plaintiff and 80% to the insured driver, holding the defendant liable for 80% of the plaintiff's damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for 80% of his damages, with liability apportioned 80% to the defendant and 20% to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 80% of the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
  • Judgment is granted on the basis of 80% to 20% in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.