Nadasan and Another v Road Accident Fund (9787/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 445 (20 August 2019)

Nadasan and Another v Road Accident Fund (9787/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 445 (20 August 2019)

The court found that the first plaintiff had the right of way at the intersection, but this did not absolve her from the duty to keep a proper lookout. The insured driver was negligent in entering the intersection at an inopportune time, causing the collision. However, the first plaintiff also failed to scan the road adequately, contributing to the accident. Both parties' counsel agreed that liability should be apportioned, and the court determined that an 80/20 split in favour of the first plaintiff was appropriate. The second plaintiff, having paid the medical and hospital expenses, was entitled to reimbursement, also subject to the 80/20 apportionment. Costs were awarded to the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 445
Parties
Plaintiff: Stella Nadasen; Plaintiff: Karusha Simons; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2019
Case Number
9787/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability and Past Medical Expenses
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs; liability apportioned 80/20 in favour of the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay proven or agreed damages and costs subject to apportionment.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Apportionment of Liability, Negligence, Past Medical Expenses
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Apportionment of Liability Negligence Past Medical Expenses

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stella Nadasen

Plaintiff

Karusha Simons

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability and Past Medical Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the first plaintiff contributed to the negligence resulting in the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for past medical and hospital expenses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first plaintiff had the right of way at the intersection, but this did not absolve her from the duty to keep a proper lookout. The insured driver was negligent in entering the intersection at an inopportune time, causing the collision. However, the first plaintiff also failed to scan the road adequately, contributing to the accident. Both parties' counsel agreed that liability should be apportioned, and the court determined that an 80/20 split in favour of the first plaintiff was appropriate. The second plaintiff, having paid the medical and hospital expenses, was entitled to reimbursement, also subject to the 80/20 apportionment. Costs were awarded to the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs; liability apportioned 80/20 in favour of the plaintiffs; defendant ordered to pay proven or agreed damages and costs subject to apportionment.

Orders

  • The Amended Draft Order marked 'XX' is made an order of court.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay to plaintiffs 80% of proven or agreed damages.