Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (11417/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1883 (3 November 2023)

Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (11417/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1883 (3 November 2023)

The Court found that the only material version before it was that the train doors were open while the train was in motion, and the plaintiff was pushed out by fellow commuters, resulting in injury. PRASA did not dispute these core facts and failed to present any evidence contradicting the plaintiff's account. The minor discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the extent to which the doors were open did not amount to mutually destructive versions and did not undermine her credibility on the central issue. The Court declined to apply the Stellenbosch test, as there was only one factual witness and no conflicting versions. Based on settled jurisprudence, operating a train with...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1883
Parties
Plaintiff: NS Mkhize; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2023
Case Number
11417/20
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Liability is found in favour of the plaintiff; PRASA is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Negligence, Public Transport Liability, Bodily Integrity, Compensatory Damages
Delict Land and Property Negligence Public Transport Liability Bodily Integrity Compensatory 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NS Mkhize

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA was negligent in operating a train with its doors open while in motion.
  2. 2 Whether the discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence amount to mutually destructive versions requiring the Stellenbosch test.
  3. 3 Whether PRASA is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff after being pushed out of the open door of a moving train.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the only material version before it was that the train doors were open while the train was in motion, and the plaintiff was pushed out by fellow commuters, resulting in injury. PRASA did not dispute these core facts and failed to present any evidence contradicting the plaintiff's account. The minor discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding the extent to which the doors were open did not amount to mutually destructive versions and did not undermine her credibility on the central issue. The Court declined to apply the Stellenbosch test, as there was only one factual witness and no conflicting versions. Based on settled jurisprudence, operating a train with...

Court Disposition

Liability is found in favour of the plaintiff; PRASA is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on a party and party scale, including the costs of counsel.