Janks v Shad Developments (A3088/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 316 (31 October 2017)

Janks v Shad Developments (A3088/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 316 (31 October 2017)

The court found that the versions of the appellant's and respondent's witnesses were mutually destructive. The magistrate preferred the evidence of Mr Sigudla, the TLB driver, over that of Miss Janks, the Audi driver. On the facts as accepted, Mr Sigudla took all reasonable precautions: he switched on the TLB's lights and right indicator, waited for oncoming traffic to pass, and observed that the vehicle behind him had stopped, indicating awareness of his intention to turn. The court held that he could not reasonably be expected to foresee or guard against the appellant's unreasonable overtaking manoeuvre, which involved crossing a barrier line and overtaking two stationary vehicles...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 316
Parties
Appellant: Vicky Allison Janks; Respondent: Shad Developments
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Case Number
A3088/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
F G Barrie, I Opperman
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages Act
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Act

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vicky Allison Janks

Appellant

Shad Developments

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's employee was negligent in causing the motor vehicle collision.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved the requisites for liability against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the TLB driver met the standard of a reasonable operator in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the versions of the appellant's and respondent's witnesses were mutually destructive. The magistrate preferred the evidence of Mr Sigudla, the TLB driver, over that of Miss Janks, the Audi driver. On the facts as accepted, Mr Sigudla took all reasonable precautions: he switched on the TLB's lights and right indicator, waited for oncoming traffic to pass, and observed that the vehicle behind him had stopped, indicating awareness of his intention to turn. The court held that he could not reasonably be expected to foresee or guard against the appellant's unreasonable overtaking manoeuvre, which involved crossing a barrier line and overtaking two stationary vehicles...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.