Macheke and Another v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2013/16571) [2015] ZAGPJHC 22 (9 February 2015)

Macheke and Another v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2013/16571) [2015] ZAGPJHC 22 (9 February 2015)

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that PRASA breached a legal duty of care owed to Grant or that such breach was causally linked to his injuries. The evidence did not establish where PRASA's duty began and ended relative to the railway tracks outside the station precinct, nor did it demonstrate that, but for the alleged inadequate safety measures, the accident would not have occurred. Grant's own admission that he voluntarily crossed the tracks, disregarding the available pedestrian bridge, and his concession of miscalculation, further undermined the claim. The court found the probabilities did not favour the plaintiffs, particularly in...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 22
Parties
Plaintiff: Solomon Oupa Macheke; Plaintiff: Grant Macheke; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2015
Case Number
2013/16571
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Determination; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Siwendu
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Omission, Contributory Negligence, Public Transport Liability
Delict Land and Property Duty of Care Negligent Omission Contributory Negligence Public Transport Liability

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Oupa Macheke

Plaintiff

Grant Macheke

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Determination; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA owed a legal duty of care to Grant and the public beyond commuters within the station precinct.
  2. 2 Whether PRASA breached its duty of care by failing to implement reasonable safety measures to prevent public access to railway tracks.
  3. 3 Whether Grant's injuries were causally linked to PRASA's alleged breach of duty.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that PRASA breached a legal duty of care owed to Grant or that such breach was causally linked to his injuries. The evidence did not establish where PRASA's duty began and ended relative to the railway tracks outside the station precinct, nor did it demonstrate that, but for the alleged inadequate safety measures, the accident would not have occurred. Grant's own admission that he voluntarily crossed the tracks, disregarding the available pedestrian bridge, and his concession of miscalculation, further undermined the claim. The court found the probabilities did not favour the plaintiffs, particularly in...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.