Pretorius v Padongelukke Fonds (15225/2006) [2011] ZAGPPHC 204 (24 October 2011)

Pretorius v Padongelukke Fonds (15225/2006) [2011] ZAGPPHC 204 (24 October 2011)

The court found, on the probabilities and the expert evidence, that the plaintiff did not attempt a U-turn and was riding parallel to the truck at the time of the collision. The truck driver was negligent in failing to maintain a safe distance and in not moving to the right to avoid the collision, despite having sufficient space and no oncoming traffic. The plaintiff was not negligent in turning left but was found to have contributed minimally to the accident by riding too close to the lane into which the truck was travelling and by failing to keep a proper lookout to the rear. The court apportioned liability at 90% to the defendant and 10% to the plaintiff, holding the defendant liable...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 204
Parties
Plaintiff: P. Pretorius; Defendant: Padongelukke Fonds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2011
Case Number
15225/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Apportionment of Liability
Outcome
Defendant held liable for 90% of plaintiff's proven damages; plaintiff contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%. Costs awarded to plaintiff, including expert witness costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Rabie R
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Road Accident Fund, Contributory Negligence
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Liability Road Accident Fund Contributory Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Pretorius

Plaintiff

Padongelukke Fonds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Apportionment of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, to what extent.
  3. 3 What apportionment of liability is appropriate between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the probabilities and the expert evidence, that the plaintiff did not attempt a U-turn and was riding parallel to the truck at the time of the collision. The truck driver was negligent in failing to maintain a safe distance and in not moving to the right to avoid the collision, despite having sufficient space and no oncoming traffic. The plaintiff was not negligent in turning left but was found to have contributed minimally to the accident by riding too close to the lane into which the truck was travelling and by failing to keep a proper lookout to the rear. The court apportioned liability at 90% to the defendant and 10% to the plaintiff, holding the defendant liable...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for 90% of plaintiff's proven damages; plaintiff contributorily negligent to the extent of 10%. Costs awarded to plaintiff, including expert witness costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • It is declared that the defendant is liable for 90% of the damages the plaintiff may prove or as agreed between the parties arising from the collision on 30 June 2001.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs in respect of the trial before this court and on the merits, including: (a) the costs of senior and junior counsel for three days of trial; (b) the reasonable and fair costs of qualifying, preparing, and compiling a report and joint minute by Mr B. Grobbelaar;...