Sekhoto v RAF (3898/ 2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1171 (5 September 2017)

Sekhoto v RAF (3898/ 2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1171 (5 September 2017)

The court found that Mr. Jacobs was in control of the truck and was the driver for the purposes of the Road Accident Fund Act, regardless of whether he was physically in the cab at the moment of the accident. The evidence established that Jacobs either engaged the gears or failed to depress the clutch, causing the truck to lurch and the load bin to fall on the plaintiff. Even if Jacobs was not in the cab, he knew the gears could be accidentally engaged due to the condition of the gear link and failed to check this before starting the truck. The court held that Jacobs failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiff's safety and was negligent. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1171
Parties
Plaintiff: Potshela Buti Sekhoto; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2017
Case Number
3898/ 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant declared liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the accident; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
A Millar
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Liability Separation, Compensation for Occupational Injuries, Expert Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Liability Separation Compensation for Occupational Injuries Expert Evidence

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Potshela Buti Sekhoto

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the insured driver negligent in causing the accident resulting in the plaintiff's injuries?
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff suffer injuries as a result of the accident?
  3. 3 Is the defendant liable for the plaintiff's damages arising from the accident?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr. Jacobs was in control of the truck and was the driver for the purposes of the Road Accident Fund Act, regardless of whether he was physically in the cab at the moment of the accident. The evidence established that Jacobs either engaged the gears or failed to depress the clutch, causing the truck to lurch and the load bin to fall on the plaintiff. Even if Jacobs was not in the cab, he knew the gears could be accidentally engaged due to the condition of the gear link and failed to check this before starting the truck. The court held that Jacobs failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the plaintiff's safety and was negligent. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries...

Court Disposition

Defendant declared liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the accident; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages flowing from the injuries sustained in the accident of 14 April 2015.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's reasonable taxed or agreed party and party costs relating to the issue of liability on the High Court scale, including the full day's fees of senior counsel for 28, 29, 30 and 31 August 2017, reasonable travel and accommodation expenses, and costs of preparing heads of...