Ramokhele v Road Accident Fund (80635/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 26 (19 January 2023)

Ramokhele v Road Accident Fund (80635/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 26 (19 January 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own making when the truck cross-turned in front of him. The plaintiff's actions in swerving to avoid the truck were reasonable and not negligent. The truck driver's hazardous manoeuvre was negligent, as was the Daihatsu driver's conduct in overtaking the truck on the left and off the road. The inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements did not detract from the credibility of his oral evidence, which was accepted by the court. The defendant had knowledge of the truck's involvement from the outset and was not prejudiced by the amendment to the particulars of claim. The application to amend was granted,...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff: Ben Rampete Ramokhele; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
80635/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Trial; Quantum Settled; Adjudication of Negligence and Contributory Negligence
Outcome
Plaintiff found not negligent; amendment to particulars of claim granted; draft order marked 'X' made an order of court.
Judges
Le Grange
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accident, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Amendment of Particulars of Claim
Delict Motor Vehicle Accident Negligence Contributory Negligence Amendment of Particulars of Claim

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Rampete Ramokhele

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Trial; Quantum Settled; Adjudication of Negligence and Contributory Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in the circumstances of the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the truck driver and Daihatsu driver were negligent and contributed to the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim could be amended to include the truck driver's negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was confronted with a sudden emergency not of his own making when the truck cross-turned in front of him. The plaintiff's actions in swerving to avoid the truck were reasonable and not negligent. The truck driver's hazardous manoeuvre was negligent, as was the Daihatsu driver's conduct in overtaking the truck on the left and off the road. The inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements did not detract from the credibility of his oral evidence, which was accepted by the court. The defendant had knowledge of the truck's involvement from the outset and was not prejudiced by the amendment to the particulars of claim. The application to amend was granted,...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff found not negligent; amendment to particulars of claim granted; draft order marked 'X' made an order of court.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is entitled to 100% of his claim for damages against the defendant.
  • The particulars of claim are amended to include the negligence of the truck driver as a cause of the accident.