Melnichenko v Road Accident Fund and Another (396/2001) [2006] ZANCHC 19 (17 March 2006)

Melnichenko v Road Accident Fund and Another (396/2001) [2006] ZANCHC 19 (17 March 2006)

The court found that, although it was drizzling, visibility was relatively good at the time of the accident. The evidence established that Mr Melnichenko’s view was momentarily obscured by a minibus taxi as he left the stop street, and he failed to keep a proper lookout before crossing the N12. The trial judge’s findings were supported by the inspection in loco and the credibility of Mrs du Plessis’s evidence, which was preferred where it conflicted with the Melnichenkos’ account. The absence of headlights on Mrs du Plessis’s vehicle was not causally linked to the accident. The court held that Mr Melnichenko was negligent and solely responsible for the collision, and there was no basis to...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 19
Parties
Appellant: Cleone Melnichenko; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Third Party: Nataniel Melnichenko
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2006
Case Number
396/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kgomo, Majiedt, P L Tlaletsi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident Fund Act, Apportionment of Damages, Intersection Right of Way
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Road Accident Fund Act Apportionment of Damages Intersection Right of Way

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cleone Melnichenko

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Nataniel Melnichenko

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third party, Mr Melnichenko, was negligent and solely responsible for the accident.
  2. 2 Whether Mrs du Plessis, the insured driver, failed to keep a proper lookout or contributed to the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the weather conditions and visibility required Mrs du Plessis to have her headlights on and if their absence contributed causally to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although it was drizzling, visibility was relatively good at the time of the accident. The evidence established that Mr Melnichenko’s view was momentarily obscured by a minibus taxi as he left the stop street, and he failed to keep a proper lookout before crossing the N12. The trial judge’s findings were supported by the inspection in loco and the credibility of Mrs du Plessis’s evidence, which was preferred where it conflicted with the Melnichenkos’ account. The absence of headlights on Mrs du Plessis’s vehicle was not causally linked to the accident. The court held that Mr Melnichenko was negligent and solely responsible for the collision, and there was no basis to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.