Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Swart (90/86) [1986] ZASCA 85 (1 September 1986)

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Swart (90/86) [1986] ZASCA 85 (1 September 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly found both the driver of the insured vehicle and the respondent negligent in causing the collision. The insured vehicle was stationary in the middle of a wide, straight gravel road, covered in dust, with obscured warning signs and lights, creating a foreseeable hazard for other road users, especially under conditions of impaired visibility. The respondent was negligent in driving too close behind the dust cloud, which limited his ability to avoid the stationary vehicle. The trial court's apportionment of negligence—70% to the insured driver and 30% to the respondent—was justified on the evidence and in accordance with...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 85
Parties
Appellant: Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk; Respondent: Barend Jacobus Petrus Swart
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 1986
Case Number
90/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Viljoen, Jacobs, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Apportionment of Liability, Standard of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Apportionment of Liability Standard of Care

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk

Appellant

Barend Jacobus Petrus Swart

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the driver of the insured vehicle negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 To what extent did the negligence of each party contribute to the accident.
  3. 3 Should the apportionment of negligence by the trial court be interfered with on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly found both the driver of the insured vehicle and the respondent negligent in causing the collision. The insured vehicle was stationary in the middle of a wide, straight gravel road, covered in dust, with obscured warning signs and lights, creating a foreseeable hazard for other road users, especially under conditions of impaired visibility. The respondent was negligent in driving too close behind the dust cloud, which limited his ability to avoid the stationary vehicle. The trial court's apportionment of negligence—70% to the insured driver and 30% to the respondent—was justified on the evidence and in accordance with...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.