Lekhehle v Road Accident Fund (6765/08) [2011] ZAFSHC 78 (26 May 2011)

Lekhehle v Road Accident Fund (6765/08) [2011] ZAFSHC 78 (26 May 2011)

The court found that both drivers bore responsibility for the collision. The driver of the Nissan failed to check his rear-view mirror at the crucial moment before moving towards the pavement to pick up a passenger, thereby neglecting his duty to ensure it was safe to do so. The driver of the Mazda was found to be primarily negligent for failing to maintain a safe following distance and not taking adequate evasive action. The court apportioned causation at 90% to the Mazda driver and 10% to the Nissan driver, based on the evidence and applicable legal principles regarding proper lookout and signalling.

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 78
Parties
Appellant: Lydia Maphoka Lekhehle; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Case Number
6765/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits Only
Outcome
The court found the driver of the Mazda 90% negligent and the driver of the Nissan 10% negligent in causing the collision.
Judges
K.J. Moloi
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Proper Lookout
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Proper Lookout

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lydia Maphoka Lekhehle

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver of the Nissan was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the driver of the Mazda was negligent and to what extent.
  3. 3 Whether the signals given by the Nissan were visible, adequate, and timeous as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both drivers bore responsibility for the collision. The driver of the Nissan failed to check his rear-view mirror at the crucial moment before moving towards the pavement to pick up a passenger, thereby neglecting his duty to ensure it was safe to do so. The driver of the Mazda was found to be primarily negligent for failing to maintain a safe following distance and not taking adequate evasive action. The court apportioned causation at 90% to the Mazda driver and 10% to the Nissan driver, based on the evidence and applicable legal principles regarding proper lookout and signalling.

Court Disposition

The court found the driver of the Mazda 90% negligent and the driver of the Nissan 10% negligent in causing the collision.

Orders

  • Merits are determined in favour of the defendant to the extent of 90% causation attributed to the Mazda driver and 10% to the Nissan driver.
  • Quantum to be determined separately.