Guroviph v Standard General Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk (487/1987) [1988] ZASCA 141 (17 November 1988)

Guroviph v Standard General Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk (487/1987) [1988] ZASCA 141 (17 November 1988)

The court found that there was no direct evidence that the Mazda crossed onto the southern lane after passing Coetzee. The appellant's own testimony contradicted such a possibility, and the physical evidence at the scene, including glass fragments and oil marks, was found on the northern lane. The court held that it was highly improbable, given the short time between Coetzee passing the Mazda and the collision, that the Mazda could have crossed the centre line and then swerved back before the collision occurred. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof that the collision occurred on the southern side of the road or that the Mazda driver was negligent. Accordingly, the appeal...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 141
Parties
Appellant: Peter George Guroviph; Respondent: Standard General Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 1988
Case Number
487/1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Hefer, Vivier
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Onus of Proof
Delict Negligence Contributory Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Onus of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter George Guroviph

Appellant

Standard General Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the collision caused by the negligence of the driver of the Mazda vehicle.
  2. 2 If so, was the appellant contributorily negligent.
  3. 3 Did the collision occur on the southern (appellant's correct) side or the northern side of the road.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no direct evidence that the Mazda crossed onto the southern lane after passing Coetzee. The appellant's own testimony contradicted such a possibility, and the physical evidence at the scene, including glass fragments and oil marks, was found on the northern lane. The court held that it was highly improbable, given the short time between Coetzee passing the Mazda and the collision, that the Mazda could have crossed the centre line and then swerved back before the collision occurred. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof that the collision occurred on the southern side of the road or that the Mazda driver was negligent. Accordingly, the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.