Johnson v Road Accident Fund (2193/2007) [2009] ZAWCHC 71 (11 February 2009)

Johnson v Road Accident Fund (2193/2007) [2009] ZAWCHC 71 (11 February 2009)

The court found that Ms Patterson was negligent in suddenly stopping in the intersection after indicating she would proceed, which fell short of the conduct expected of a reasonable driver and was a cause of the collision. The plaintiff, although not driving recklessly, was also negligent for following too closely and failing to anticipate the possibility of a sudden stop, given the proximity of her vehicle to the one ahead. The court held that the plaintiff's negligence was considerably less than Ms Patterson's and apportioned fault at 80% to Ms Patterson and 20% to the plaintiff. The defendant, therefore, is liable to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven damages.

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Tracey Jane Elizabeth Johnson; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2009
Case Number
2193/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Defendant liable for 80% of plaintiff's proven damages; costs of liability phase awarded to plaintiff; costs for remainder of trial reserved.
Judges
Louw
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Apportionment of Fault, Negligence, Rear End Collision
Delict Motor Vehicle Collision Apportionment of Fault Negligence Rear End Collision

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

Tracey Jane Elizabeth Johnson

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant liable for damages arising from the motor vehicle collision on 20 June 2003.
  2. 2 Was the plaintiff contributorily negligent in causing the collision.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate apportionment of fault between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ms Patterson was negligent in suddenly stopping in the intersection after indicating she would proceed, which fell short of the conduct expected of a reasonable driver and was a cause of the collision. The plaintiff, although not driving recklessly, was also negligent for following too closely and failing to anticipate the possibility of a sudden stop, given the proximity of her vehicle to the one ahead. The court held that the plaintiff's negligence was considerably less than Ms Patterson's and apportioned fault at 80% to Ms Patterson and 20% to the plaintiff. The defendant, therefore, is liable to pay 80% of the plaintiff's proven damages.

Court Disposition

Defendant liable for 80% of plaintiff's proven damages; costs of liability phase awarded to plaintiff; costs for remainder of trial reserved.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 80% of such damages as she may in due course prove to have sustained as the result of the collision which occurred on 20 June 2003.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff in regard to the determination of the issue of the defendant's liability.