Road Accident Fund v Mehlomakulu (CA 377/2008) [2009] ZAECHC 25; 2009 (5) SA 390 (E) (19 February 2009)

Road Accident Fund v Mehlomakulu (CA 377/2008) [2009] ZAECHC 25; 2009 (5) SA 390 (E) (19 February 2009)

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on res ipsa loquitur to prove negligence in respect of the first collision, as the mere occurrence of a collision between two vehicles on a national road does not justify an inference of negligence. However, the plaintiff's further allegation that the insured vehicles were left stationary and unlighted on a curve in the roadway after sunset created a hazardous obstruction, and the evidence established that the plaintiff was suddenly confronted with an unlighted vehicle in his path, which he could not avoid. In common human experience, such an occurrence does not happen without negligence on the part of the person in control of the...

Citation
[2009] ZAECHC 25
Parties
Appellant: THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND; Respondent: ZILANDILE MEHLOMAKULU
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2009
Case Number
CA 377/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Declaratory Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jones, Plasket, Tshiki
Legal Topics
Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Road Accident Fund Act, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Road Accident Fund Act Onus of Proof

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND

Appellant

ZILANDILE MEHLOMAKULU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Declaratory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the maxim res ipsa loquitur to discharge the onus of proving negligence for his injuries.
  2. 2 Whether the presence of an unlighted stationary vehicle on the roadway at night constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant rebutted the inference of negligence arising from the circumstances of the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on res ipsa loquitur to prove negligence in respect of the first collision, as the mere occurrence of a collision between two vehicles on a national road does not justify an inference of negligence. However, the plaintiff's further allegation that the insured vehicles were left stationary and unlighted on a curve in the roadway after sunset created a hazardous obstruction, and the evidence established that the plaintiff was suddenly confronted with an unlighted vehicle in his path, which he could not avoid. In common human experience, such an occurrence does not happen without negligence on the part of the person in control of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The Road Accident Fund is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.