Roma v Road Accident Fund (2111/2020) [2023] ZAECMKHC 77 (27 June 2023)

Roma v Road Accident Fund (2111/2020) [2023] ZAECMKHC 77 (27 June 2023)

The plaintiff discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that the driver, Ms Tebe, was negligent in causing the collision. The evidence of Ms Sintwa was credible and reliable, establishing that the plaintiff had crossed the road and was struck by the vehicle due to the driver's failure to keep a proper lookout or give a wide enough berth. The defendant did not plead contributory negligence and offered only a bare denial, with no evidence to support its position. As contributory negligence was not pleaded, the court held that apportionment of damages does not arise. The defendant is therefore liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages resulting from the accident.

Citation
[2023] ZAECMKHC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: Yandiswa Yvonne Roma; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Case Number
2111/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
The defendant is held liable for payment to the plaintiff of 100% of her damages arising from the motor vehicle accident.
Judges
Laing
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Apportionment of Damages Burden 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yandiswa Yvonne Roma

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver, Ms Tebe, was negligent in causing the collision with the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant can rely on contributory negligence or apportionment of damages without having pleaded it.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof regarding the driver's negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that the driver, Ms Tebe, was negligent in causing the collision. The evidence of Ms Sintwa was credible and reliable, establishing that the plaintiff had crossed the road and was struck by the vehicle due to the driver's failure to keep a proper lookout or give a wide enough berth. The defendant did not plead contributory negligence and offered only a bare denial, with no evidence to support its position. As contributory negligence was not pleaded, the court held that apportionment of damages does not arise. The defendant is therefore liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages resulting from the accident.

Court Disposition

The defendant is held liable for payment to the plaintiff of 100% of her damages arising from the motor vehicle accident.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable for payment to the plaintiff of 100% of her damages, as ordered or agreed upon by the parties, because of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18 July 2019, along Jacob Zuma Drive, at Makhanda.
  • The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff's party-and-party costs on the High Court scale, as taxed or agreed upon by the parties, including the costs of trial on 1 December 2022 and 29 March 2023.