Pienaar v Road Accident Fund (2011/ 43693) [2015] ZAGPJHC 205 (11 September 2015)

Pienaar v Road Accident Fund (2011/ 43693) [2015] ZAGPJHC 205 (11 September 2015)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was travelling in the left lane of Fifth Avenue and attempted a right turn into Tenth Street, crossing into the right lane where the plaintiff was travelling. The area of impact, damage to the insured vehicle, and its resting position supported this finding. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout, did not check her side mirror, and did not ensure it was safe to turn, thereby executing a dangerous manoeuvre. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, who had no recollection due to injury. The mere fact that the plaintiff collided with the rear of the insured vehicle did not establish...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 205
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Stephanus Pienaar; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Case Number
2011/ 43693
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Defendant found solely liable for the collision; plaintiff entitled to compensation for all agreed or proven damages.
Judges
B.C Wanless
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Proper Lookout, Dangerous Manoeuvre
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Apportionment of Damages Proper Lookout Dangerous Manoeuvre

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

Daniel Stephanus Pienaar

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the insured driver negligent and was her negligence the sole cause of the collision.
  2. 2 Should any negligence be apportioned to the plaintiff under the Apportionment of Damages Act.
  3. 3 Did the insured driver keep a proper lookout and take reasonable precautions when executing a right turn.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was travelling in the left lane of Fifth Avenue and attempted a right turn into Tenth Street, crossing into the right lane where the plaintiff was travelling. The area of impact, damage to the insured vehicle, and its resting position supported this finding. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout, did not check her side mirror, and did not ensure it was safe to turn, thereby executing a dangerous manoeuvre. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the plaintiff, who had no recollection due to injury. The mere fact that the plaintiff collided with the rear of the insured vehicle did not establish...

Court Disposition

Defendant found solely liable for the collision; plaintiff entitled to compensation for all agreed or proven damages.

Orders

  • The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff in respect of all of his agreed or proven damages arising from the collision which took place on 16 June 2010.
  • The Defendant is to pay the costs of the Plaintiff in respect of the issue of liability, to date.