Leshalabe v Road Accident Fund (21631/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 337 (19 May 2009)

Leshalabe v Road Accident Fund (21631/08) [2009] ZAGPPHC 337 (19 May 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to persuade the court that her version of the events was correct and accepted the insured driver's account. However, the insured driver was also found to have been negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, as is required by law. The court held that both parties contributed to the occurrence of the accident: the plaintiff by entering the road without sufficient observation, and the insured driver by not noticing the plaintiff and failing to take evasive action. Accordingly, the court apportioned liability, finding the insured driver (and thus the defendant) liable for 30% of the plaintiff's damages.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 337
Parties
Plaintiff: Mkhomola Florence Leshalabe; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Case Number
21631/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination
Outcome
Liability apportioned; defendant liable for 30% of plaintiff's damages and ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Preller
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Road Accident Claims
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Apportionment of Liability Road Accident Claims

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mkhomola Florence Leshalabe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in crossing the road without proper observation.
  2. 2 Whether the insured driver was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians.
  3. 3 How liability should be apportioned between the plaintiff and the insured driver.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to persuade the court that her version of the events was correct and accepted the insured driver's account. However, the insured driver was also found to have been negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, as is required by law. The court held that both parties contributed to the occurrence of the accident: the plaintiff by entering the road without sufficient observation, and the insured driver by not noticing the plaintiff and failing to take evasive action. Accordingly, the court apportioned liability, finding the insured driver (and thus the defendant) liable for 30% of the plaintiff's damages.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned; defendant liable for 30% of plaintiff's damages and ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable for 30% of the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.