Kilian and Others v Road Accident Fund (06/14110) [2010] ZAGPJHC 181 (14 June 2010)

Kilian and Others v Road Accident Fund (06/14110) [2010] ZAGPJHC 181 (14 June 2010)

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff was travelling at an excessive speed, at least 115 km/h, in a residential area with a speed limit of 60 km/h, and failed to take evasive action despite having sufficient visibility to observe the Mazda obstructing her lane. The insured driver stopped the Mazda on the incorrect side of the road, obstructing the plaintiff's lane of travel. Both parties' conduct fell short of what is expected of a reasonable driver under the circumstances. The negligence of each was causally linked to the collision, and neither party's conduct could be considered a novus actus interveniens. The court apportioned...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 181
Parties
Plaintiff: Alta Kilian; Plaintiff: Hermanus Fourie; Plaintiff: Heidene Fourie; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2010
Case Number
06/14110
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination Before Quantum
Outcome
Defendant is liable to the first plaintiff for payment of 50% of her proven damages, with costs of the hearing on liability awarded to the plaintiff.
Judges
PA Meyer
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Road Accident Fund Act, Apportionment of Fault
Delict Negligence Contributory Negligence Road Accident Fund Act Apportionment of Fault

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alta Kilian

Plaintiff

Hermanus Fourie

Plaintiff

Heidene Fourie

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination Before Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant (Road Accident Fund) liable to compensate the first plaintiff for damages resulting from the collision?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff and the insured driver act negligently, and if so, to what extent did their negligence contribute to the collision?
  3. 3 Should the plaintiff's damages be reduced due to contributory negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff was travelling at an excessive speed, at least 115 km/h, in a residential area with a speed limit of 60 km/h, and failed to take evasive action despite having sufficient visibility to observe the Mazda obstructing her lane. The insured driver stopped the Mazda on the incorrect side of the road, obstructing the plaintiff's lane of travel. Both parties' conduct fell short of what is expected of a reasonable driver under the circumstances. The negligence of each was causally linked to the collision, and neither party's conduct could be considered a novus actus interveniens. The court apportioned...

Court Disposition

Defendant is liable to the first plaintiff for payment of 50% of her proven damages, with costs of the hearing on liability awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to the first plaintiff for payment of 50% of her proven damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the first plaintiff's costs of the hearing on the issue of liability.