Mangolele v Road Accident Fund (A542/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 208 (13 June 2019)

Mangolele v Road Accident Fund (A542/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 208 (13 June 2019)

The court held that the minor, aged 12, fell within the age group where there is a rebuttable presumption of lack of accountability. The Road Accident Fund did not present any evidence to rebut this presumption, and thus the minor could not be found contributorily negligent. However, the court found no evidence that the insured driver was negligent. There was no indication that the driver was aware or should have been aware that children would attempt to jump onto the back of the truck, especially given the absence of handles or grips. The reasonable driver would not have foreseen or prevented the incident, and no reasonable steps could have been expected to guard against such conduct....

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 208
Parties
Appellant: Advocate Simon Mangolele (Curator ad litem for: P M[….]); Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2019
Case Number
A542/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
S. Potterill, L.M. Molopa-Sethosa, J.J. Strijdom
Legal Topics
Child Accountability, Negligence, Road Accident Liability, Contributory Negligence
Delict Child Accountability Negligence Road Accident Liability 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Simon Mangolele (Curator ad litem for: P M[….])

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minor child, aged between 10 and 13, could be held accountable or contributorily negligent for injuries sustained after jumping onto the back of a bakery truck.
  2. 2 Whether the insured driver was negligent and liable for the injuries suffered by the minor child.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the minor, aged 12, fell within the age group where there is a rebuttable presumption of lack of accountability. The Road Accident Fund did not present any evidence to rebut this presumption, and thus the minor could not be found contributorily negligent. However, the court found no evidence that the insured driver was negligent. There was no indication that the driver was aware or should have been aware that children would attempt to jump onto the back of the truck, especially given the absence of handles or grips. The reasonable driver would not have foreseen or prevented the incident, and no reasonable steps could have been expected to guard against such conduct....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.