Mazangwa v Road Accident Fund (A598/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 435 (7 August 2020)

Mazangwa v Road Accident Fund (A598/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 435 (7 August 2020)

Both the appellant and the insured driver failed to meet the standard of a reasonable road user by not keeping a proper lookout. The appellant was negligent in crossing at a non-designated area and failing to observe oncoming traffic, while the insured driver was negligent in failing to scan the road and anticipate potential pedestrian presence, especially on a route frequented by pedestrians. The trial court erred in finding the appellant solely negligent and in not apportioning fault. The appellate court found both parties equally to blame, with the appellant bearing 50% responsibility for the loss sustained. The Road Accident Fund is therefore liable for 50% of the appellant's proven...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 435
Parties
Appellant: Dhliwayo Shadrack Mazangwa; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2020
Case Number
A598/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is substituted with an order apportioning liability equally between the parties.
Judges
NP Mngqibisa-Thusi, SA M Baqwa, JJ Strijdom
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Motor Vehicle Collision, Proper Lookout, Contributory Negligence
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Fault Motor Vehicle Collision Proper Lookout 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhliwayo Shadrack Mazangwa

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver's negligence was the cause of the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the cause of the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its application of the principles of negligence and apportionment of fault.

Ratio Decidendi

Both the appellant and the insured driver failed to meet the standard of a reasonable road user by not keeping a proper lookout. The appellant was negligent in crossing at a non-designated area and failing to observe oncoming traffic, while the insured driver was negligent in failing to scan the road and anticipate potential pedestrian presence, especially on a route frequented by pedestrians. The trial court erred in finding the appellant solely negligent and in not apportioning fault. The appellate court found both parties equally to blame, with the appellant bearing 50% responsibility for the loss sustained. The Road Accident Fund is therefore liable for 50% of the appellant's proven...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court is substituted with an order apportioning liability equally between the parties.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order made on 6 June 2017 is substituted by the following: The Road Accident Fund is liable for 50% of the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages.