Seef C L obo Devon and Aonther v Road Accident Fund (2011/31448) [2014] ZAGPJHC 159 (16 May 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPJHC 159
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wright
- Case number
- 2011/31448
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Wright
- Case number
- 2011/31448
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the driver of vehicle X acted recklessly by blocking both lanes of Terrace Road, which directly led to the collision with the deceased driver. As the action was brought by dependents, the negligence of the deceased driver was immaterial to the determination of liability. The Road Accident Fund is therefore liable for all damages suffered by the dependents arising from the collision, with the quantum of damages reserved for future determination.
Court disposition
Liability for damages in favour of the dependents; quantum reserved.
Orders
- It is declared that the Road Accident Fund is liable for all of the damages suffered by the dependents arising out of the collision.
- The Road Accident Fund is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs including those of the expert, R A Opperman.
- The question of quantum is reserved for future determination.
02
Material facts
Parties
Seef, C L obo Lange, Devon
Plaintiff Counsel: W PyeDelafuente, L B obo Delefuente, Isabella Lela Grace
Plaintiff Counsel: W PyeRoad Accident Fund
Defendant Counsel: T C Salane03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Liability / Liability Determination; Quantum Reserved
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Road Accident Fund is liable for damages suffered by the dependents as a result of the collision.
- 02
Whether the conduct of the driver of vehicle X constituted recklessness relevant to liability.
- 03
Whether the deceased driver's negligence is material to the dependents' action.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiffs argued that the collision was caused by the reckless conduct of the driver of vehicle X, who blocked both lanes of Terrace Road, resulting in the deceased driver colliding with vehicle X. They contended that the dependents are entitled to damages from the Road Accident Fund as a result of the collision, regardless of any negligence on the part of the deceased driver.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not dispute the facts and accepted that the action was a dependents' claim. The Fund agreed that liability for damages suffered by the dependents would rest with it, subject to proof of quantum at a later hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Road Accident Fund Act
In a dependents' action, the liability of the Road Accident Fund is determined by the damages suffered by the dependents as a result of the collision, irrespective of the deceased driver's negligence.
- 02
Common law principles of delict
Reckless conduct by a third party that causes a collision may establish liability for damages under the law of delict.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the driver of vehicle X acted recklessly by blocking both lanes of Terrace Road, which directly led to the collision with the deceased driver. As the action was brought by dependents, the negligence of the deceased driver was immaterial to the determination of liability. The Road Accident Fund is therefore liable for all damages suffered by the dependents arising from the collision, with the quantum of damages reserved for future determination.
Obiter and limits
- The question of quantum is reserved for another hearing and was not determined in this judgment.
- The conduct of the driver of vehicle X was reckless and directly contributed to the collision.
Court disposition
Liability for damages in favour of the dependents; quantum reserved.
- It is declared that the Road Accident Fund is liable for all of the damages suffered by the dependents arising out of the collision.
- The Road Accident Fund is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs including those of the expert, R A Opperman.
- The question of quantum is reserved for future determination.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2011/31448
DATE: 16 MAY 2014
In the matter between:
SEEF, C L obo LANGE, DEVON..............................................................First Plaintiff
DELAFUENTE, L B obo DELEFUENTE,
ISABELLA LELA GRACE......................................................................Second Plaintiff
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND.................................................................................Defendant
J U
D G M E N T
WRIGHT J
1. The facts in this case are common cause. The deceased driver was driving along Betchuana Road. At its intersection with Terrace Road he took the slip-road to the left, going into Terrace Road. Terrace Road has two lanes going in in the direction that the deceased driver was traveling. On the left hand side, on the pavement at the point where the slip-road from Betchuana Road meets Terrace Road there is a pole. About 30 meters from that pole, on the pavement just left of the left hand lane in Terrace Road there is a street light pole.
2. At about 3:30am on the morning in question, a police vehicle was stationary in the left lane in Terrace Road next to the street light pole. The police had stopped the vehicle which was stationary immediately in front of the police vehicle. Another vehicle, (vehicle X) which had been traveling in convoy with the vehicle stopped by the police, was stationary, two vehicles in front of the police vehicle. The driver of vehicle X then did a u-turn, traveling over the solid line separating the lanes going in different directions in Terrace Road, completed a circular manoeuvre and stopped next to the police vehicle in the right hand lane, apparently to make inquiries. In so doing, the driver of vehicle X completed the blocking of both lanes in Terrace Road. The driver of vehicle X was in my view reckless.
3. The deceased driver, once he had entered Terrace Road drove into the back of vehicle X. It is not necessary for me to decide whether or not the deceased driver was negligent as the present action is a dependent’s action.
4. The Fund is liable for all of the damages which the dependents can prove against the Fund.
5. By agreement the question of quantum is reserved for another hearing.
Order
1. It is declared that the Fund is liable for all of the damages suffered by the dependents arising out of the collision.
2. The Fund is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs including those of the expert, R A Opperman.
3. The question of quantum is reserved for future determination.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
On behalf of the 1st & 2nd Plaintiffs: Adv. W Pye
082 416 1000
Instructed by: C N Sweetnam Attorney
011 648 9520
On behalf of the Respondent: Att. T C Salane
076 039 5087
Instructed by: Pule Inc
011 482 1044
Dates of Hearing: 16 May 2014
Date of Judgment: 16 May 2014
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.