Shongwe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A512/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 118 (18 June 2012)

Shongwe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A512/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 118 (18 June 2012)

The court found that the train doors were closed when the appellant attempted to board, and that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by trying to board a moving train. The evidence of the respondent's witnesses was accepted as credible, establishing that the train was operating properly and the doors were closed. The appellant's own testimony confirmed his awareness of the risks and his decision to take those risks. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was upheld, and the appellant was found to be 100% negligent for his injuries. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent or its employees. The appeal was dismissed, and the original...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 118
Parties
Appellant: Mfanafuthi Lucas Shongwe; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2012
Case Number
A512/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim in Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M W Msimeki, R G Tolmay, C P Rabie
Legal Topics
Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Personal Injury, Train Accident
Delict Civil Procedure Volenti Non Fit Injuria Negligence Contributory Negligence Personal Injury Train Accident

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mfanafuthi Lucas Shongwe

Appellant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Claim in Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the doors of the train were open or closed when the Plaintiff attempted to board the train.
  2. 2 Whether the employees of the Defendant acted negligently in the causation of the incident.
  3. 3 If so, whether the Plaintiff negligently contributed to such causation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the train doors were closed when the appellant attempted to board, and that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by trying to board a moving train. The evidence of the respondent's witnesses was accepted as credible, establishing that the train was operating properly and the doors were closed. The appellant's own testimony confirmed his awareness of the risks and his decision to take those risks. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was upheld, and the appellant was found to be 100% negligent for his injuries. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent or its employees. The appeal was dismissed, and the original...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.