Schultz v MEC For Public Works, Roads & Transport and Another (49051/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 651 (19 August 2014)

Schultz v MEC For Public Works, Roads & Transport and Another (49051/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 651 (19 August 2014)

The court found that the first defendant, responsible for the maintenance of the road, failed to provide and maintain adequate signage and road markings at a hazardous diversion, constituting a wrongful and negligent omission. Expert and lay evidence established that only one inadequate chevron sign was present and that the lane markings were faded and ineffective, creating a dangerous situation for motorists. The court further found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, either by driving too fast or failing to keep a proper lookout, especially as he was familiar with the road. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act, the court held that both parties' negligence contributed...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 651
Parties
Plaintiff: B B Schultz; Defendant: MEC For Public Works, Roads & Transport; Defendant: Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2014
Case Number
49051/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Apportionment of Liability
Outcome
Liability apportioned: first defendant liable for 40% of proven damages; plaintiff liable for 60%. Costs awarded as per order.
Judges
D S Fourie
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Damages Act, Road Maintenance Liability, Duty of Care, Contributory Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Land and Property Negligence Apportionment of Damages Act Road Maintenance Liability Duty of Care Contributory Negligence

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B B Schultz

Plaintiff

MEC For Public Works, Roads & Transport

Defendant

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Apportionment of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant was negligent in failing to provide and maintain adequate road signage and markings at the accident site.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the lack of proper signage and markings was a wrongful omission by the first defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defendant, responsible for the maintenance of the road, failed to provide and maintain adequate signage and road markings at a hazardous diversion, constituting a wrongful and negligent omission. Expert and lay evidence established that only one inadequate chevron sign was present and that the lane markings were faded and ineffective, creating a dangerous situation for motorists. The court further found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, either by driving too fast or failing to keep a proper lookout, especially as he was familiar with the road. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act, the court held that both parties' negligence contributed...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: first defendant liable for 40% of proven damages; plaintiff liable for 60%. Costs awarded as per order.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first defendant is liable to make payment to the plaintiff of 40% of the damages which may be proven or agreed between the parties with regard to injuries sustained by the plaintiff on 11 July 2009.
  • The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's party and party costs to date hereof, including the costs of two counsel.