National Employers General Insurance Company Ltd v Sullivan (87/87) [1987] ZASCA 85 (15 September 1987)

National Employers General Insurance Company Ltd v Sullivan (87/87) [1987] ZASCA 85 (15 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that Grater was negligent and that such negligence was causally related to the respondent's injuries. The evidence did not establish that Grater failed to keep a proper lookout or that he could have avoided the collision by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 85
Parties
Appellant: National Employers' General Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Timothy James Sullivan
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 1987
Case Number
87/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment After Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; absolution from the instance granted in favour of the appellant.
Judges
Viljoen, Hefer, Jacobs, Smalberger, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Standard of Care, Apportionment of Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Onus of Proof Standard of Care Apportionment of Liability

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

National Employers' General Insurance Company Limited

Appellant

Timothy James Sullivan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment After Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Grater, the insured driver, was negligent and whether such negligence caused the respondent's injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving negligence and causation against the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court and court a quo erred in finding liability against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that Grater was negligent and that such negligence was causally related to the respondent's injuries. The evidence did not establish that Grater failed to keep a proper lookout or that he could have avoided the collision by exercising the care of a reasonable driver. The court found that Grater acted as a reasonable driver would in the circumstances, given his knowledge of the road, the expectation that side road traffic would observe stop signs, and the limited visibility at the intersection. The trial court and court a quo erred in finding liability against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs; absolution from the instance granted in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.