Posthumus N.O. and Another v Road Accident Fund (20024/2014) [2015] ZASCA 40 (25 March 2015)

Posthumus N.O. and Another v Road Accident Fund (20024/2014) [2015] ZASCA 40 (25 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the bakkie was present at the scene with its headlights shining into the roadway, and that this conduct foreseeably posed a risk to oncoming motorists. The evidence of Mr and Mrs Maritz, corroborated by the affidavit of the deceased bakkie driver, established that the dazzling headlights blinded the minibus driver and caused the accident. The bakkie driver's failure to dim or turn off the headlights constituted negligence. The respondent's liability is not limited under section 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act, as the accident was not solely attributable to the minibus driver. The affidavit of the deceased driver was correctly admitted by the...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 40
Parties
Appellant: Wihan Posthumus N.O.; Appellant: Angelo Adelino Da Silva Moreira N.O.; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2015
Case Number
20024/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's liability not limited under section 18(1)(b) of the Act.
Judges
Mhlantla, Leach, Saldulker, Mbha, Gorven
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident Fund Act, Causal Negligence, Liability Limitation, Admissibility of Evidence
Delict Negligence Road Accident Fund Act Causal Negligence Liability Limitation Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wihan Posthumus N.O.

Appellant

Angelo Adelino Da Silva Moreira N.O.

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court of Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver of the parked bakkie was negligent in leaving headlights shining into the roadway.
  2. 2 Whether the dazzling headlights caused the accident and injuries to Mr and Mrs Posthumus.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's liability is limited under section 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the bakkie was present at the scene with its headlights shining into the roadway, and that this conduct foreseeably posed a risk to oncoming motorists. The evidence of Mr and Mrs Maritz, corroborated by the affidavit of the deceased bakkie driver, established that the dazzling headlights blinded the minibus driver and caused the accident. The bakkie driver's failure to dim or turn off the headlights constituted negligence. The respondent's liability is not limited under section 18(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act, as the accident was not solely attributable to the minibus driver. The affidavit of the deceased driver was correctly admitted by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's liability not limited under section 18(1)(b) of the Act.

Orders

  • The respondent’s application for a postponement of the appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal succeeds with costs, and the order of the full court is set aside and substituted with: (a) The appeal succeeds with costs. (b) Paragraph 1 of the trial court’s order of 25 October 2010 is amended by the deletion of the words 'limited in terms of section 18(1)(b) of the Act.'