Rabothatha v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (37116/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 859 (23 November 2018)

Rabothatha v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) (37116/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 859 (23 November 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence or unlawful conduct by the train conductor or driver. The evidence showed that the train doors were not opened by PRASA employees where there was no platform, and it was possible for passengers to forcefully open the doors. The plaintiff admitted that his conduct in jumping between trains was unlawful, risky, and constituted a criminal offence, and he appreciated the danger but proceeded regardless. The defendant successfully established the defence of volenti non fit injuria, as the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. Therefore, PRASA cannot be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries sustained in the incident.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 859
Parties
Plaintiff: Maropene Billy Rabothatha; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Case Number
37116/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.M Mabuse
Legal Topics
Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Negligence, Duty of Care, Railway Passenger Liability
Delict Volenti Non Fit Injuria Negligence Duty of Care Railway Passenger Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maropene Billy Rabothatha

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a passenger.
  2. 2 Whether the train conductor or driver was negligent in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of volenti non fit injuria applies to bar the plaintiff's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence or unlawful conduct by the train conductor or driver. The evidence showed that the train doors were not opened by PRASA employees where there was no platform, and it was possible for passengers to forcefully open the doors. The plaintiff admitted that his conduct in jumping between trains was unlawful, risky, and constituted a criminal offence, and he appreciated the danger but proceeded regardless. The defendant successfully established the defence of volenti non fit injuria, as the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. Therefore, PRASA cannot be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries sustained in the incident.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.