Phoshoko v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (10/46975) [2015] ZAGPJHC 36 (15 February 2015)

Phoshoko v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (10/46975) [2015] ZAGPJHC 36 (15 February 2015)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be improbable and lacking credibility, noting inconsistencies and contradictions in his evidence regarding the location of the incident, the circumstances of his fall, and the possession of a ticket. The defendant's witnesses were found to be credible and reliable, with no reason to fabricate their testimony. The court accepted the defendant's version that the plaintiff was outside the train, holding onto the bars between coaches, and jumped off, causing his own injuries. There was no evidence of overcrowding or negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence or to lay a factual...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 36
Parties
Plaintiff: Nteleng Albert Phoshoko; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2015
Case Number
10/46975
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits (negligence)
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; liability determined against the plaintiff.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Personal Injury, Railway Safety
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Liability Personal Injury Railway Safety

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nteleng Albert Phoshoko

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits (negligence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was responsible for his own injuries by jumping off the moving train.
  3. 3 Whether liability should be apportioned under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be improbable and lacking credibility, noting inconsistencies and contradictions in his evidence regarding the location of the incident, the circumstances of his fall, and the possession of a ticket. The defendant's witnesses were found to be credible and reliable, with no reason to fabricate their testimony. The court accepted the defendant's version that the plaintiff was outside the train, holding onto the bars between coaches, and jumped off, causing his own injuries. There was no evidence of overcrowding or negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence or to lay a factual...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; liability determined against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The separated issue of liability is determined against the plaintiff.
  • Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.