Pretorius v Road Accident Fund (24084/05) [2009] ZAGPHC 14 (3 February 2009)

Pretorius v Road Accident Fund (24084/05) [2009] ZAGPHC 14 (3 February 2009)

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff was driving at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper lookout, resulting in him being on his incorrect lane at the time of the collision. The insured driver also failed to keep a proper lookout and entered the main road at an unsafe time, contributing to the collision. The physical evidence, including brake marks and witness testimony, supported the finding that the plaintiff was driving at high speed and did not take sufficient evasive action. The court determined that the insured driver was more to blame, apportioning liability at 60% to the insured driver and 40% to the plaintiff. The...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Gert Diedericks Jacobus Pretorius; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2009
Case Number
24084/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds in part; liability apportioned 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.
Judges
Molopa
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Road Accident Fund, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Road Accident Fund Expert 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gert Diedericks Jacobus Pretorius

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the insured driver negligent in causing the collision on 14 March 2004?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff contribute to the collision by excessive speed or failure to keep a proper lookout?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate apportionment of liability between the parties?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff was driving at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper lookout, resulting in him being on his incorrect lane at the time of the collision. The insured driver also failed to keep a proper lookout and entered the main road at an unsafe time, contributing to the collision. The physical evidence, including brake marks and witness testimony, supported the finding that the plaintiff was driving at high speed and did not take sufficient evasive action. The court determined that the insured driver was more to blame, apportioning liability at 60% to the insured driver and 40% to the plaintiff. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds in part; liability apportioned 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay 60% of the plaintiff's proven damages.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of two counsel and the qualifying fees of Professor Lemmer.