Mdlalose v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/5898) [2025] ZAGPJHC 637 (25 June 2025)

Mdlalose v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/5898) [2025] ZAGPJHC 637 (25 June 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff was a regular commuter, possessed a valid ticket, and his version of events was consistent and supported by the probabilities. The defendant's version was vague, unsubstantiated, and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff's account of being pushed from a moving train with open doors was not disputed in cross-examination, and the defendant failed to produce evidence regarding the condition of the train doors or any incident reports. The defences of volenti non fit iniuria and contributory negligence were not supported by the evidence and were not properly put to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the defendant failed in its duty of care and is...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 637
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Mdlalose; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
2019/5898
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Separated by Prior Order
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the plaintiff on liability.
Judges
E Raubenheimer
Legal Topics
Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Personal Injury

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mdlalose

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Separated by Prior Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for injuries suffered by the plaintiff when he was pushed from a moving train with open doors.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by travelling on a train with open doors or by his own conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was a regular commuter, possessed a valid ticket, and his version of events was consistent and supported by the probabilities. The defendant's version was vague, unsubstantiated, and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff's account of being pushed from a moving train with open doors was not disputed in cross-examination, and the defendant failed to produce evidence regarding the condition of the train doors or any incident reports. The defences of volenti non fit iniuria and contributory negligence were not supported by the evidence and were not properly put to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the defendant failed in its duty of care and is...

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the plaintiff on liability.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action on scale C.