Protea Assurance Company Ltd. v LTA Building (SWA) Ltd. and Another (334/85) [1987] ZASCA 88; [1988] 1 All SA 252 (A) (18 September 1987)

Protea Assurance Company Ltd. v LTA Building (SWA) Ltd. and Another (334/85) [1987] ZASCA 88; [1988] 1 All SA 252 (A) (18 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Thomas was not negligent in his driving on the morning of the collision. His speed was within the prescribed limit, and there were no special circumstances requiring further caution. The court held that Thomas was entitled to rely on the stop signs controlling entry from access roads and that his failure to see the 769 truck was due to a fortuitous conjunction of circumstances, including the sun's position and the movement of the vehicles, rather than any lack of proper lookout or negligence. There was no evidence that Thomas should have anticipated the truck's entry onto the haul road without observing the stop sign. The allegations of negligence...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 88
Parties
Appellant: Protea Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: LTA Building (SWA) Limited; Respondent: Godfrey Edward Thomas
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 1987
Case Number
334/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Trial Judgment Delivered, Appeal Heard and Decided
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Nicholas, Hefer, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Joint Wrongdoers, Negligence, Contribution Claims, Motor Vehicle Accident
Delict Civil Procedure Joint Wrongdoers Negligence Contribution Claims Motor Vehicle Accident

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

Parties

Protea Assurance Company Limited

Appellant

LTA Building (SWA) Limited

Respondent

Godfrey Edward Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Trial Judgment Delivered, Appeal Heard and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Thomas, the driver of the Ekonobus, was negligent and contributed to the collision and resultant damages.
  2. 2 Whether LTA Building (SWA) Ltd was negligent in failing to inform or prohibit its employees from using the haul road.
  3. 3 Whether Protea Assurance Company Ltd was entitled to claim a contribution from the respondents as joint wrongdoers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Thomas was not negligent in his driving on the morning of the collision. His speed was within the prescribed limit, and there were no special circumstances requiring further caution. The court held that Thomas was entitled to rely on the stop signs controlling entry from access roads and that his failure to see the 769 truck was due to a fortuitous conjunction of circumstances, including the sun's position and the movement of the vehicles, rather than any lack of proper lookout or negligence. There was no evidence that Thomas should have anticipated the truck's entry onto the haul road without observing the stop sign. The allegations of negligence...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Protea Assurance Company Ltd is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs attendant on two counsel.