Malan v Road Accident Fund (05/9227) [2007] ZAGPHC 396 (6 November 2007)

Malan v Road Accident Fund (05/9227) [2007] ZAGPHC 396 (6 November 2007)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was driving on the incorrect side of the road and caused the collision. The plaintiff's version was corroborated by her daughter, Mr Neethling, and the investigating officer, and was supported by the probabilities and credibility assessments. The plaintiff was confronted with a sudden emergency and her evasive actions were reasonable under the circumstances. There was no evidence to support contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The collision was caused solely by the insured driver's negligence.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 396
Parties
Plaintiff: Elma Malan; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2007
Case Number
05/9227
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination (negligence and Contributory Negligence)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The collision was caused by the sole negligence of the insured driver. No contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff.
Judges
PA Meyer
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Sudden Emergency
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Contributory Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Sudden Emergency

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elma Malan

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination (negligence and Contributory Negligence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent and caused the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the collision was caused solely by the insured driver.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was driving on the incorrect side of the road and caused the collision. The plaintiff's version was corroborated by her daughter, Mr Neethling, and the investigating officer, and was supported by the probabilities and credibility assessments. The plaintiff was confronted with a sudden emergency and her evasive actions were reasonable under the circumstances. There was no evidence to support contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The collision was caused solely by the insured driver's negligence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The collision was caused by the sole negligence of the insured driver. No contributory negligence was proved against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The collision was caused by the sole negligence of the insured driver.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of this trial.