Marais v Road Accident Fund (128/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 40 (25 April 2019)

Marais v Road Accident Fund (128/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 40 (25 April 2019)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events more probable, supported by the chronology and evidence. The insured driver executed a sudden U-turn on the plaintiff's correct side of the road, failed to keep a proper lookout, and did not exercise the reasonable care expected of an experienced driver. The defendant's alternative defence of contributory negligence was unsupported by evidence. The insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, and judgment on the merits was entered in favour of the plaintiff.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 40
Parties
Plaintiff: Willem Pieter Marais; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2019
Case Number
128/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated for Later Determination
Outcome
Judgment on the merits entered in favour of the plaintiff with costs.
Judges
Mathebula
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Proper Lookout, U Turn Collision
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Proper Lookout U Turn Collision

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Pieter Marais

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated for Later Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the motor collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the collision by failing to exercise a proper lookout.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events more probable, supported by the chronology and evidence. The insured driver executed a sudden U-turn on the plaintiff's correct side of the road, failed to keep a proper lookout, and did not exercise the reasonable care expected of an experienced driver. The defendant's alternative defence of contributory negligence was unsupported by evidence. The insured driver was solely responsible for the collision, and judgment on the merits was entered in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment on the merits entered in favour of the plaintiff with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment on the merits is entered in favour of the plaintiff with costs.