Makamo v Road Accident Fund (2733/2029) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 15 (2 June 2021)

Makamo v Road Accident Fund (2733/2029) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 15 (2 June 2021)

The court found that the insured driver was confronted with an emergency when another vehicle drove on the incorrect side of the road. The insured driver took reasonable steps to avoid a collision, including alerting the other driver and swerving to the right when a head-on collision seemed imminent. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's allegations that the insured driver lost control or acted negligently. The court held that the insured driver acted as a reasonable person would under the circumstances and was not negligent. The plaintiff failed to establish, even on a balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was at fault to any degree. Accordingly, the claim against the...

Citation
[2021] ZAMPMBHC 15
Parties
Plaintiff: Fikile Milicewnt Makamo; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2021
Case Number
2733/2029
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Trial on Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident Claim, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence
Delict Negligence Road Accident Claim Duty of Care 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fikile Milicewnt Makamo

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Trial on Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in the manner that led to the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff, as a passenger, established any negligence on the part of the insured driver sufficient to sustain a claim against the Road Accident Fund.
  3. 3 Whether the insured driver could have acted differently to avoid the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the insured driver was confronted with an emergency when another vehicle drove on the incorrect side of the road. The insured driver took reasonable steps to avoid a collision, including alerting the other driver and swerving to the right when a head-on collision seemed imminent. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's allegations that the insured driver lost control or acted negligently. The court held that the insured driver acted as a reasonable person would under the circumstances and was not negligent. The plaintiff failed to establish, even on a balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was at fault to any degree. Accordingly, the claim against the...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed with costs.