Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Swart (90/86) [1987] ZASCA 81; [1987] 2 All SA 443 (A) (1 September 1987)

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. v Swart (90/86) [1987] ZASCA 81; [1987] 2 All SA 443 (A) (1 September 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent in stopping on the roadway without taking reasonable precautions, especially given the impaired visibility caused by dust. The respondent was also negligent for following too closely behind the dust cloud, which limited his ability to avoid the stationary vehicle. The trial court's apportionment of fault—70% to the insured vehicle's driver and 30% to the respondent—was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's findings or its division of liability.

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 81
Parties
Appellant: Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk; Respondent: Barend Jacobus Petrus Swart
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 1987
Case Number
90/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Viljoen, Jacobs, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Apportionment of Liability
Delict Contributory Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Apportionment of 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 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 Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent in stopping on the roadway without taking reasonable precautions, especially given the impaired visibility caused by dust. The respondent was also negligent for following too closely behind the dust cloud, which limited his ability to avoid the stationary vehicle. The trial court's apportionment of fault—70% to the insured vehicle's driver and 30% to the respondent—was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's findings or its division of liability.

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

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