Muvhimi v Road Accident Fund (2046/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1007 (28 October 2019)

Muvhimi v Road Accident Fund (2046/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1007 (28 October 2019)

The court found the plaintiff to be a credible witness regarding the events of the collision, accepting his evidence that he was standing on the traffic island when struck by the insured vehicle. The insured driver failed to testify, and in the absence of an alternative explanation, the court applied the Galante principle, favouring the plaintiff's version. The court held that both the insured driver and the plaintiff were negligent: the driver for failing to keep a proper lookout and the plaintiff for standing on the traffic island, which was not intended for pedestrians. Liability was apportioned at 90% to the defendant and 10% to the plaintiff. The quantum for loss of earning capacity...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1007
Parties
Plaintiff: R Muvhimi; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Case Number
2046/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial and Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff with apportionment of liability: 90% defendant, 10% plaintiff.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Apportionment of Damages, Contributory Negligence, General Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Apportionment of Damages Contributory Negligence General Damages Loss of Earning Capacity

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R Muvhimi

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent and caused the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff contributed to the collision by his own negligence.
  3. 3 The extent of apportionment of liability between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff to be a credible witness regarding the events of the collision, accepting his evidence that he was standing on the traffic island when struck by the insured vehicle. The insured driver failed to testify, and in the absence of an alternative explanation, the court applied the Galante principle, favouring the plaintiff's version. The court held that both the insured driver and the plaintiff were negligent: the driver for failing to keep a proper lookout and the plaintiff for standing on the traffic island, which was not intended for pedestrians. Liability was apportioned at 90% to the defendant and 10% to the plaintiff. The quantum for loss of earning capacity...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff with apportionment of liability: 90% defendant, 10% plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay 90% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R900,000.00 in respect of general damages.