Masilela v Road Accident Fund (23556/2010) [2015] ZAGPJHC 193 (14 August 2015)

Masilela v Road Accident Fund (23556/2010) [2015] ZAGPJHC 193 (14 August 2015)

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The insured driver, as a professional, failed to take adequate precautions when driving through a crowd of revellers, disregarding the safety of pedestrians and failing to take alternative routes or proactive measures. The plaintiff, meanwhile, failed to keep a proper lookout and did not comply with statutory pedestrian duties, contributing to the collision. The evidence was unsatisfactory and contradictory on both sides, but the probabilities favoured that the accident occurred in the street with the vehicle moving slowly. The court determined that the insured driver's negligence was greater and apportioned...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 193
Parties
Plaintiff: Masilela S M; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2015
Case Number
23556/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Determined; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Liability apportioned: defendant liable for 70% of plaintiff's proven damages; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
E F Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Road Traffic Act, Pedestrian Duties
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Apportionment of Liability Road Traffic Act Pedestrian Duties

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masilela S M

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Liability Determined; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle collision.
  2. 2 To what extent, if any, the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the collision.
  3. 3 How liability should be apportioned between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The insured driver, as a professional, failed to take adequate precautions when driving through a crowd of revellers, disregarding the safety of pedestrians and failing to take alternative routes or proactive measures. The plaintiff, meanwhile, failed to keep a proper lookout and did not comply with statutory pedestrian duties, contributing to the collision. The evidence was unsatisfactory and contradictory on both sides, but the probabilities favoured that the accident occurred in the street with the vehicle moving slowly. The court determined that the insured driver's negligence was greater and apportioned...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: defendant liable for 70% of plaintiff's proven damages; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The issues surrounding the quantum of the plaintiff's claim are postponed sine die.
  • The defendant is liable to pay 70 per cent of the plaintiff's proven damages.