Ngubane v South African Transport Services (92/89) [1990] ZASCA 148; 1991 (1) SA 756 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 22 (AD) (28 November 1990)

Ngubane v South African Transport Services (92/89) [1990] ZASCA 148; 1991 (1) SA 756 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 22 (AD) (28 November 1990)

The court found that the appellant's evidence regarding the accident was credible and uncontradicted by direct evidence. The respondent's criticisms of the appellant's account were insufficient to warrant its rejection. The court held that the respondent's servants were negligent in allowing the train to depart while passengers were still alighting and doors were open, creating a high risk of serious injury. The procedures prescribed by the respondent required ticket examiners and guards to ensure it was safe for the train to depart, and these were not followed. The court rejected the argument that the risk could not be eliminated without substantial cost, finding that the necessary...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 148
Parties
Appellant: Otto Malusi Ngubane; Respondent: South African Transport Services
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1990
Case Number
92/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted; Cross Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment for the appellant in the amount of R867,033.00 with costs, including qualifying fees for expert witnesses.
Judges
Joubert, E M Grosskopf, Milne, Kumleben, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages, Public Transport Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Personal Injury Quantum of Damages Public Transport Liability

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otto Malusi Ngubane

Appellant

South African Transport Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted; Cross Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was negligent in allowing the train to depart while passengers were still alighting and doors were open.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's injuries were caused by the respondent's negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was contributorily negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's evidence regarding the accident was credible and uncontradicted by direct evidence. The respondent's criticisms of the appellant's account were insufficient to warrant its rejection. The court held that the respondent's servants were negligent in allowing the train to depart while passengers were still alighting and doors were open, creating a high risk of serious injury. The procedures prescribed by the respondent required ticket examiners and guards to ensure it was safe for the train to depart, and these were not followed. The court rejected the argument that the risk could not be eliminated without substantial cost, finding that the necessary...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment for the appellant in the amount of R867,033.00 with costs, including qualifying fees for expert witnesses.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel and the costs of the abortive cross-appeal.
  • The order of the court a quo is altered to read: Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of R867,033.00 with costs, including qualifying fees of Dr Chait, Dr Lissoos, Mrs Thompson, Mr Cohen and Mr Rolland.