Malumo v Tredoux (69431/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 37 (30 March 2011)

Malumo v Tredoux (69431/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 37 (30 March 2011)

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for the plaintiff's vehicle, which was already in the intersection. Even if the traffic light was green for the defendant, she should have observed the plaintiff's vehicle crossing multiple lanes and adjusted her speed accordingly. The defendant's attention was diverted by another vehicle, and she did not notice the plaintiff until it was too late. The plaintiff's evidence was found credible and consistent with the probabilities. The defendant's version was unsatisfactory and contradicted by her own witness. On a balance of probabilities, the defendant was negligent and liable for the damages suffered by...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 37
Parties
Plaintiff: Kesso Diallo Malumo; Defendant: Susanna Tredoux
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2011
Case Number
69431/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Negligence and Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds; defendant found negligent and liable for damages.
Judges
Matojane
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Onus of Proof 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kesso Diallo Malumo

Plaintiff

Susanna Tredoux

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Negligence and Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the defendant negligent in relation to the collision with the plaintiff's vehicle.
  2. 2 Is the defendant liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Was the plaintiff contributorily negligent and, if so, to what degree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for the plaintiff's vehicle, which was already in the intersection. Even if the traffic light was green for the defendant, she should have observed the plaintiff's vehicle crossing multiple lanes and adjusted her speed accordingly. The defendant's attention was diverted by another vehicle, and she did not notice the plaintiff until it was too late. The plaintiff's evidence was found credible and consistent with the probabilities. The defendant's version was unsatisfactory and contradicted by her own witness. On a balance of probabilities, the defendant was negligent and liable for the damages suffered by...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds; defendant found negligent and liable for damages.

Orders

  • The Defendant is liable for such damages as the plaintiff is able to prove arising out of the collision on 4 November 2008.