N Obo N v Road Accident Fund (17439/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 77 (27 April 2015)

N Obo N v Road Accident Fund (17439/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 77 (27 April 2015)

The court found that the minor child was under 10 years old at the time of the accident, and thus, in terms of section 7(1) of the Child Justice Act and common law, there is a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. The defendant failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption or to establish contributory negligence on the part of the child. The only evidence before the court was that the child acted responsibly and was taught road safety. The insured driver, approaching a stationary bus in a busy area frequented by children, failed to exercise the heightened duty of care required in such circumstances. The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's version or provide any...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: [N……..] [J……..] [T…….] obo [N…….] [S……]; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 April 2015
Case Number
17439/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Defendant held 100% liable for any damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the collision.
Judges
Weiner
Legal Topics
Road Accident Liability, Doli Incapax, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Liability Doli Incapax Negligence Contributory Negligence 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[N……..] [J……..] [T…….] obo [N…….] [S……]

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the minor child was doli incapax and thus incapable of negligence for the purposes of civil liability.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant rebutted the presumption of doli incapax for a child under 10 years.
  3. 3 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the minor child was under 10 years old at the time of the accident, and thus, in terms of section 7(1) of the Child Justice Act and common law, there is a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. The defendant failed to lead any evidence to rebut this presumption or to establish contributory negligence on the part of the child. The only evidence before the court was that the child acted responsibly and was taught road safety. The insured driver, approaching a stationary bus in a busy area frequented by children, failed to exercise the heightened duty of care required in such circumstances. The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's version or provide any...

Court Disposition

Defendant held 100% liable for any damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the collision.

Orders

  • The defendant is held to be 100% liable in respect of any damages which the plaintiff is found to have suffered in consequence of the collision which took place on 6 February 2011.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.