Maseko v Road Accident Fund (379994/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 45 (6 February 2019)

Maseko v Road Accident Fund (379994/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 45 (6 February 2019)

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and consistent with his police statement and RAF claim form. He was hit from behind while walking on the gravel sidewalk by a vehicle travelling at high speed, which did not stop. The defendant's argument regarding contributory negligence was unsupported by evidence and not put to the plaintiff in cross-examination. The point of impact on the pedestrian part of the road is sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the unidentified driver. Accordingly, the defendant is one hundred percent liable for the plaintiff's proven damages arising from the collision under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 45
Parties
Plaintiff: Paulus Isaac Maseko; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2019
Case Number
379994/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination
Outcome
Defendant found one hundred percent liable for plaintiff's proven damages arising from the collision.
Judges
Andrews
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Personal Injury 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paulus Isaac Maseko

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unidentified driver of the insured vehicle was negligent and caused the plaintiff's injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's loss or damage under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and consistent with his police statement and RAF claim form. He was hit from behind while walking on the gravel sidewalk by a vehicle travelling at high speed, which did not stop. The defendant's argument regarding contributory negligence was unsupported by evidence and not put to the plaintiff in cross-examination. The point of impact on the pedestrian part of the road is sufficient to establish negligence on the part of the unidentified driver. Accordingly, the defendant is one hundred percent liable for the plaintiff's proven damages arising from the collision under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.

Court Disposition

Defendant found one hundred percent liable for plaintiff's proven damages arising from the collision.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable in terms of section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act 57 of 1996 for the plaintiff's proven loss or damage suffered as a result of any bodily injury caused by or arising from the driving of the insured vehicle on 12 March 2016 on the R557 road, Gauteng Province.
  • Costs are reserved until the final determination of the quantum of damages.