Schoeman v Road Accident Fund (7809/17) [2019] ZAGPJHC 116 (19 April 2019)

Schoeman v Road Accident Fund (7809/17) [2019] ZAGPJHC 116 (19 April 2019)

Both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent and their combined negligence caused the collision. The plaintiff failed to indicate her intention to cross and did not keep a proper lookout throughout the crossing, while the insured driver was travelling at an excessive speed in a school zone and failed to keep a proper lookout for the plaintiff's vehicle, which she had previously observed parked. The insured driver’s negligence was substantially greater, as she ignored the risk posed by the plaintiff’s vehicle and did not take evasive action when she could have. The court accepts the accident reconstruction expert’s evidence that the insured driver was speeding and could have...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 116
Parties
Plaintiff: Sandra Schoeman; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2019
Case Number
7809/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits (liability) Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Liability apportioned: defendant (Road Accident Fund) liable for 70% of plaintiff's damages and costs; quantum separated and postponed sine die.
Judges
R M Keightley
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Personal Injury, Apportionment of Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Personal Injury 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Schoeman

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits (liability) Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the insured driver negligent and causally connected to the collision?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff contribute to the negligence causing the collision?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate apportionment of liability between the parties?

Ratio Decidendi

Both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent and their combined negligence caused the collision. The plaintiff failed to indicate her intention to cross and did not keep a proper lookout throughout the crossing, while the insured driver was travelling at an excessive speed in a school zone and failed to keep a proper lookout for the plaintiff's vehicle, which she had previously observed parked. The insured driver’s negligence was substantially greater, as she ignored the risk posed by the plaintiff’s vehicle and did not take evasive action when she could have. The court accepts the accident reconstruction expert’s evidence that the insured driver was speeding and could have...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: defendant (Road Accident Fund) liable for 70% of plaintiff's damages and costs; quantum separated and postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for 70% of the damages to be proven and resulting from the collision which occurred on 24 February 2014.
  • The determination of the quantum of damages is separated from liability and postponed sine die.