Koekemoer v Road Accident Fund (2123/2021) [2023] ZAECQBHC 34 (8 June 2023)

Koekemoer v Road Accident Fund (2123/2021) [2023] ZAECQBHC 34 (8 June 2023)

The court found the plaintiff and the independent witness to be credible and consistent, while the insured driver's evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The probabilities, supported by common cause facts and the quality of the plaintiff’s evidence, favoured the plaintiff’s version that the insured driver executed an inopportune right-hand turn across his line of travel, causing the collision. The insured driver’s version was implausible and inconsistent with the physical evidence and witness accounts. The plaintiff had right of way and could not reasonably have been expected to take evasive action. The insured driver was solely negligent in causing the collision, and no contributory...

Citation
[2023] ZAECQBHC 34
Parties
Plaintiff: Roche Koekemoer; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2023
Case Number
2123/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits (liability Only; Quantum Separated)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability; defendant found solely negligent.
Judges
S A Collett
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident Liability, Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Road Accident Liability Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roche Koekemoer

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits (liability Only; Quantum Separated)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was solely negligent in causing the collision on 15 April 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the insured driver.
  3. 3 Whether any contributory negligence by the plaintiff was established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff and the independent witness to be credible and consistent, while the insured driver's evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The probabilities, supported by common cause facts and the quality of the plaintiff’s evidence, favoured the plaintiff’s version that the insured driver executed an inopportune right-hand turn across his line of travel, causing the collision. The insured driver’s version was implausible and inconsistent with the physical evidence and witness accounts. The plaintiff had right of way and could not reasonably have been expected to take evasive action. The insured driver was solely negligent in causing the collision, and no contributory...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability; defendant found solely negligent.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for 100% of such damages as may be proven or agreed in consequence of any injuries sustained by him in the collision which occurred on 15 April 2018, such collision having been occasioned solely by the driver of motor vehicle B[…], namely Yolande Ann Walton.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of trial on the merits, including the costs of two counsel and the reasonable costs of the photographs and the inspection in loco.