Scheepers v Road Accident Fund (A436/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 579 (28 August 2021)

Scheepers v Road Accident Fund (A436/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 579 (28 August 2021)

The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the prima facie inference of negligence arising from a rear-end collision. The evidence showed that the appellant was travelling too close to the insured driver and could not stop in time, which was the sole cause of the collision. The actions of the unidentified insured driver did not constitute sufficient negligence to attribute liability. The insured driver was found to have acted reasonably under the circumstances, maintaining a safe speed and following distance. The appellant's own concession under cross-examination confirmed her failure to keep a proper lookout and maintain a safe distance. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 579
Parties
Appellant: Corlette Scheepers; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2021
Case Number
A436/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Sardiwalla, L M Molopa-Sethosa, D S Fourie
Legal Topics
Road Accident Claim, Negligence, Rear End Collision, Onus of Proof
Delict Road Accident Claim Negligence Rear End Collision 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corlette Scheepers

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the plaintiff's case.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved negligence on the part of the unidentified insured driver.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus required in rear-end collisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the prima facie inference of negligence arising from a rear-end collision. The evidence showed that the appellant was travelling too close to the insured driver and could not stop in time, which was the sole cause of the collision. The actions of the unidentified insured driver did not constitute sufficient negligence to attribute liability. The insured driver was found to have acted reasonably under the circumstances, maintaining a safe speed and following distance. The appellant's own concession under cross-examination confirmed her failure to keep a proper lookout and maintain a safe distance. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.