Road Accident Fund v Russell (656/98) [2000] ZASCA 66; 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 160 (A) (24 November 2000)

Road Accident Fund v Russell (656/98) [2000] ZASCA 66; 2001 (2) SA 34 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 160 (A) (24 November 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the deceased's suicide did not constitute a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation between the motor collision and his death. The evidence established that the brain injury sustained in the collision was the major factor inducing depression and impaired judgment, materially affecting the deceased's ability to make a balanced decision. The act of suicide, though deliberate, was not performed by a person of sound mind and unimpaired judgment. Applying the flexible approach to legal causation, the court found it reasonable, fair, and just to hold the appellant liable for damages arising from the suicide. The appeal was dismissed with...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Teresa Doris Russell
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Case Number
656/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Howie, Schutz, Chetty
Legal Topics
Legal Causation, Novus Actus Interveniens, Suicide and Brain Injury, Loss of Support, Foreseeability, Depression and Liability
Delict Legal Causation Novus Actus Interveniens Suicide and Brain Injury Loss of Support Foreseeability Depression and 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Appellant

Teresa Doris Russell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased's suicide constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation between the motor collision and his death.
  2. 2 Whether the brain injury and resultant depression materially impaired the deceased's judgment, affecting legal causation.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is liable for damages arising from the deceased's suicide.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the deceased's suicide did not constitute a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation between the motor collision and his death. The evidence established that the brain injury sustained in the collision was the major factor inducing depression and impaired judgment, materially affecting the deceased's ability to make a balanced decision. The act of suicide, though deliberate, was not performed by a person of sound mind and unimpaired judgment. Applying the flexible approach to legal causation, the court found it reasonable, fair, and just to hold the appellant liable for damages arising from the suicide. The appeal was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.