Mashae v Road Accident Fund (022280/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 422 (20 May 2019)

Mashae v Road Accident Fund (022280/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 422 (20 May 2019)

The court found the plaintiff’s version of events to be inherently improbable. The physical evidence and the insured driver’s testimony indicated that the insured driver had entered the intersection first and that the plaintiff failed to stop at the stop street and did not keep a proper lookout. The damage to the insured driver’s vehicle was on the rear left, supporting the conclusion that the plaintiff negligently entered the intersection and caused the collision. The court rejected the argument for apportionment of negligence, finding no negligence on the part of the insured driver. Accordingly, the plaintiff was solely responsible for the accident.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 422
Parties
Plaintiff: Thapelo Mashae; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Case Number
022280/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Yacoob
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident, Apportionment of Damages
Delict Negligence Road Accident Apportionment of Damages

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

Thapelo Mashae

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff or the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff stopped at the stop street and kept a proper lookout.
  3. 3 Whether apportionment of negligence under the Apportionment of Damages Act is appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff’s version of events to be inherently improbable. The physical evidence and the insured driver’s testimony indicated that the insured driver had entered the intersection first and that the plaintiff failed to stop at the stop street and did not keep a proper lookout. The damage to the insured driver’s vehicle was on the rear left, supporting the conclusion that the plaintiff negligently entered the intersection and caused the collision. The court rejected the argument for apportionment of negligence, finding no negligence on the part of the insured driver. Accordingly, the plaintiff was solely responsible for the accident.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costs.