Marais v Road Accident Fund (2886/2009) [2011] ZAECPEHC 9 (29 March 2011)

Marais v Road Accident Fund (2886/2009) [2011] ZAECPEHC 9 (29 March 2011)

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness were credible and their evidence should be preferred over that of the insured driver and his witness, whose testimony was unreliable and fraught with improbabilities. The insured driver entered the intersection against a red traffic light, and the plaintiff was not obliged to anticipate such unlawful conduct. The plaintiff acted as a reasonable driver would under the circumstances, and the defendant is liable for the damages arising from the collision. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the insured driver.

Citation
[2011] ZAECPEHC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Ernest Bernardus Marais; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2011
Case Number
2886/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant found liable for damages arising from the collision; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
B R Tokota
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Robot Controlled Intersection
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Onus of Proof Robot Controlled Intersection

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Bernardus Marais

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in entering the intersection against a red traffic light.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the insured driver.
  3. 3 Whether a driver entering a green robot-controlled intersection is obliged to look out for vehicles unlawfully entering against a red light.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness were credible and their evidence should be preferred over that of the insured driver and his witness, whose testimony was unreliable and fraught with improbabilities. The insured driver entered the intersection against a red traffic light, and the plaintiff was not obliged to anticipate such unlawful conduct. The plaintiff acted as a reasonable driver would under the circumstances, and the defendant is liable for the damages arising from the collision. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the insured driver.

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for damages arising from the collision; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable to pay such damages to the plaintiff as may be proved arising out of the collision on 24 January 2005.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed costs or such costs as may be agreed between the parties pertaining to the merits, such costs to include costs of one inspection in loco.