Jacobs v Road Accident Fund (A402/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 121 (13 June 2011)

Jacobs v Road Accident Fund (A402/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 121 (13 June 2011)

The court found that the insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, having executed a right turn at a dangerous and inopportune moment when it was not safe to do so. The plaintiff was entitled to proceed through the intersection in the manner he did, relying on the assumption that the insured driver would obey the traffic signals. There was no evidence that the plaintiff's actions contributed to the collision or that he failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it. The evidence of the defendant's witness was untested, contradicted other evidence, and should not have been relied upon. The court held that no contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff and that the...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 121
Parties
Appellant: Jacobs C; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2011
Case Number
A402/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Legodi J, Full Court
Outcome
Appeal succeeded; the defendant is liable for 100 percent of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
Judges
Msimeki, Molopa-Sethosa, Arnoldi
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Intersection Right of Way, Admissibility of Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Intersection Right of Way Admissibility of Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobs C

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Legodi J, Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's actions contributed causally to the occurrence of the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the insured driver was solely responsible for the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in relying on untested evidence from the defendant's witness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, having executed a right turn at a dangerous and inopportune moment when it was not safe to do so. The plaintiff was entitled to proceed through the intersection in the manner he did, relying on the assumption that the insured driver would obey the traffic signals. There was no evidence that the plaintiff's actions contributed to the collision or that he failed to take reasonable steps to avoid it. The evidence of the defendant's witness was untested, contradicted other evidence, and should not have been relied upon. The court held that no contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff and that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeded; the defendant is liable for 100 percent of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • Paragraph one of the court a quo's order is altered to read: 'The Defendant is liable for 100 percent of the Plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.'