Madyosi and Another v SA Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. (604/88) [1990] ZASCA 65; 1990 (3) SA 442 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 408 (A) (1 June 1990)

Madyosi and Another v SA Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd. (604/88) [1990] ZASCA 65; 1990 (3) SA 442 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 408 (A) (1 June 1990)

The court held that the appellants did not plead negligence relating to the maintenance of the tyres, but only alleged negligence in the manner of driving. The fact that the tyre burst was not a neutral fact; it explained why the bus left the road and overturned. Since no negligence in maintenance was pleaded, the inference of negligence from the mere occurrence could not be drawn. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply as there were known facts beyond the occurrence itself. The trial court correctly assessed the issues on the pleadings and the evidence did not justify a finding of negligence in the manner of driving or in failing to keep the bus on the tarred surface after the tyre...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: Lucrezia Tandokazi Madyosi; Appellant: Eunice Nomsakazo Bisho; Respondent: S A Eagle Insurance Co Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1990
Case Number
604/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hoexter, E M Grosskopf, Milne, Nicholas, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Pleading Requirements
Delict Negligence Onus of Proof Res Ipsa Loquitur Pleading Requirements

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucrezia Tandokazi Madyosi

Appellant

Eunice Nomsakazo Bisho

Appellant

S A Eagle Insurance Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver of the bus was negligent in causing the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts of the case.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings sufficiently alleged failure to maintain the tyres.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants did not plead negligence relating to the maintenance of the tyres, but only alleged negligence in the manner of driving. The fact that the tyre burst was not a neutral fact; it explained why the bus left the road and overturned. Since no negligence in maintenance was pleaded, the inference of negligence from the mere occurrence could not be drawn. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply as there were known facts beyond the occurrence itself. The trial court correctly assessed the issues on the pleadings and the evidence did not justify a finding of negligence in the manner of driving or in failing to keep the bus on the tarred surface after the tyre...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.