Riet obo Riet v Road Accident Fund (RAF285/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 51 (29 June 2017)

Riet obo Riet v Road Accident Fund (RAF285/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 51 (29 June 2017)

The court held that a donkey cart, being pulled by animals and not propelled by mechanical means, does not fit the statutory definition of a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act. Therefore, the minor passenger on the donkey cart cannot be regarded as a passenger in a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Act and must be treated as a pedestrian. The court further found that the plaintiff, as the minor's guardian, was contributorily negligent for allowing the minor to be on the donkey cart at night, when visibility was poor and the cart lacked lights. An apportionment of liability was made, with the defendant liable for 90% of the plaintiff's proven damages and the plaintiff...

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 51
Parties
Plaintiff: BR Riet obo VM Riet; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Case Number
RAF285/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant liable for 90% of plaintiff's proven damages; quantum postponed; costs in the cause.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Definition of Motor Vehicle, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Definition of Motor Vehicle Contributory Negligence Apportionment of 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BR Riet obo VM Riet

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a donkey cart qualifies as a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act for purposes of liability.
  2. 2 Whether the minor passenger on the donkey cart can be regarded as a passenger in a motor vehicle under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff, as the minor's guardian, was contributorily negligent for allowing the minor to be on the donkey cart at night.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a donkey cart, being pulled by animals and not propelled by mechanical means, does not fit the statutory definition of a motor vehicle under the Road Accident Fund Act. Therefore, the minor passenger on the donkey cart cannot be regarded as a passenger in a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Act and must be treated as a pedestrian. The court further found that the plaintiff, as the minor's guardian, was contributorily negligent for allowing the minor to be on the donkey cart at night, when visibility was poor and the cart lacked lights. An apportionment of liability was made, with the defendant liable for 90% of the plaintiff's proven damages and the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Defendant liable for 90% of plaintiff's proven damages; quantum postponed; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The defendant shall be liable to pay 90% of the plaintiff's proven and/or agreed damages.
  • The plaintiff shall, in the event that costs are not agreed, serve a Notice of Taxation on the defendant's attorneys of record.