Road Accident Fund v Gobingca (778/2002) [2007] ZAECHC 38 (7 June 2007)

Road Accident Fund v Gobingca (778/2002) [2007] ZAECHC 38 (7 June 2007)

The court found that the plaintiff was walking on his correct side of the road, off the tarred surface, and that there were obstructions preventing him from moving further away from the road. After the vehicle corrected its erratic movement, the plaintiff was entitled to assume it would continue safely past him. There was no evidence that the plaintiff could or should have taken any further action to avoid the collision. The driver of the vehicle was entirely to blame for the accident, and the plaintiff was not negligent. The trial court's reasoning was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 38
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Sabata Gobingca
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2007
Case Number
778/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Sandi, Plasket, Beshe
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Road Accident Fund Act, Pedestrian Liability, Apportionment of Damages
Delict Contributory Negligence Road Accident Fund Act Pedestrian Liability Apportionment of Damages

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Sabata Gobingca

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances of the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the driver of the motor vehicle was solely responsible for the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was walking on his correct side of the road, off the tarred surface, and that there were obstructions preventing him from moving further away from the road. After the vehicle corrected its erratic movement, the plaintiff was entitled to assume it would continue safely past him. There was no evidence that the plaintiff could or should have taken any further action to avoid the collision. The driver of the vehicle was entirely to blame for the accident, and the plaintiff was not negligent. The trial court's reasoning was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.