Mkhondo v Road Accident Fund (40838/15) [2019] ZAGPPHC 146 (9 May 2019)

Mkhondo v Road Accident Fund (40838/15) [2019] ZAGPPHC 146 (9 May 2019)

The court found that the only direct evidence available was the statement of the first insured driver and the expert testimony of Mr Lotter. The first insured driver observed the tyre burst but did not indicate any evasive action taken. The expert opined that the first insured driver may not have had sufficient time to avoid the collision, especially while towing a trailer. However, the second insured driver, also towing a caravan, had sufficient time and opportunity to observe the emergency and take evasive action but failed to do so. The court held that the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the second insured driver was negligent in failing to avoid the collision, and...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 146
Parties
Plaintiff: Thozama Mkhondo; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2019
Case Number
40838/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
The second respondent (Road Accident Fund) is found liable to the plaintiff for agreed or proven damages due to the negligence of the second insured driver.
Judges
N P Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Loss of Support Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thozama Mkhondo

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either or both insured drivers negligently caused the collision resulting in the deceased's death.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages (loss of support) suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only direct evidence available was the statement of the first insured driver and the expert testimony of Mr Lotter. The first insured driver observed the tyre burst but did not indicate any evasive action taken. The expert opined that the first insured driver may not have had sufficient time to avoid the collision, especially while towing a trailer. However, the second insured driver, also towing a caravan, had sufficient time and opportunity to observe the emergency and take evasive action but failed to do so. The court held that the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that the second insured driver was negligent in failing to avoid the collision, and...

Court Disposition

The second respondent (Road Accident Fund) is found liable to the plaintiff for agreed or proven damages due to the negligence of the second insured driver.

Orders

  • The second respondent is found liable to the plaintiff for agreed or proven damages due to the negligence of the second insured driver.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action.