Mashongwa v PRASA (CCT03/15) [2015] ZACC 36; 2016 (2) BCLR 204 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC) (26 November 2015)

Mashongwa v PRASA (CCT03/15) [2015] ZACC 36; 2016 (2) BCLR 204 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC) (26 November 2015)

The Constitutional Court held that PRASA, as a public carrier and organ of state, owed both public law and private law duties to protect rail commuters from foreseeable harm. The failure to deploy security guards and, critically, to ensure train doors were closed constituted wrongful and negligent omissions. The harm suffered by the applicant was reasonably foreseeable, and PRASA's own operating procedures required doors to be closed while trains were in motion. The Court found that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant would not have been thrown from the train had PRASA complied with its safety obligations. The causal link between PRASA's negligence and the applicant's injuries...

Citation
[2015] ZACC 36
Parties
Applicant: Irvine Van Sam Mashongwa; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Case Number
CCT 03/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Hearing an Appeal From North Gauteng Division High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; PRASA held liable for damages suffered by the applicant.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo
Legal Topics
Public Carrier Liability, Bodily Integrity, Wrongfulness, Negligence, Causation, Damages
Delict Constitutional Law Public Carrier Liability Bodily Integrity Wrongfulness Negligence Causation 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irvine Van Sam Mashongwa

Applicant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Hearing an Appeal From North Gauteng Division High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA is delictually liable for damages arising from breach of its public law duty to provide safety and security for rail commuters.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to deploy security guards and to keep train doors closed constitutes wrongful and negligent conduct attracting liability.
  3. 3 Whether causation between PRASA's omissions and the applicant's injuries is established.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that PRASA, as a public carrier and organ of state, owed both public law and private law duties to protect rail commuters from foreseeable harm. The failure to deploy security guards and, critically, to ensure train doors were closed constituted wrongful and negligent omissions. The harm suffered by the applicant was reasonably foreseeable, and PRASA's own operating procedures required doors to be closed while trains were in motion. The Court found that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant would not have been thrown from the train had PRASA complied with its safety obligations. The causal link between PRASA's negligence and the applicant's injuries...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; PRASA held liable for damages suffered by the applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.