Maseng v Road Accident Fund (44331/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 40 (5 March 2015)

Maseng v Road Accident Fund (44331/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 40 (5 March 2015)

The court found that the owners and/or driver of the insured vehicle were negligent in leaving the vehicle stationary in the emergency lane for an extended period without taking reasonable steps to warn oncoming motorists, such as placing warning triangles or activating hazard lights. This created a foreseeable risk of harm to other road users. The plaintiff, although placed in a sudden emergency by a pedestrian stepping into his path, failed to keep a proper lookout and did not use the adjacent clear lane to avoid the collision, despite being aware of the insured vehicle from a distance. The court held that the majority of the blame lay with the defendant for creating the obstruction and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 40
Parties
Plaintiff: Maseng Otsile; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2015
Case Number
44331/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Only
Outcome
Liability apportioned: 60% defendant, 40% plaintiff. Defendant liable for costs of proceedings and opposed application.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Emergency Lane Usage, Separation of Issues
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Apportionment of Liability Emergency Lane Usage Separation of Issues

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

Parties

Maseng Otsile

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in leaving the insured vehicle stationary in the emergency lane without adequate warning to other road users.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in failing to avoid the collision with the insured vehicle.
  3. 3 How liability should be apportioned between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the owners and/or driver of the insured vehicle were negligent in leaving the vehicle stationary in the emergency lane for an extended period without taking reasonable steps to warn oncoming motorists, such as placing warning triangles or activating hazard lights. This created a foreseeable risk of harm to other road users. The plaintiff, although placed in a sudden emergency by a pedestrian stepping into his path, failed to keep a proper lookout and did not use the adjacent clear lane to avoid the collision, despite being aware of the insured vehicle from a distance. The court held that the majority of the blame lay with the defendant for creating the obstruction and...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: 60% defendant, 40% plaintiff. Defendant liable for costs of proceedings and opposed application.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff 60 per cent of such damages as the plaintiff may prove.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the opposed application in terms of Rule 33(4) heard on 16 February 2015.