Steyn v Road Accident Fund (1233/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 241 (8 August 2024)

Steyn v Road Accident Fund (1233/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 241 (8 August 2024)

Both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff, an experienced site foreman, was aware of the hazardous nature of the roller and the safety protocols but failed to heed the warning siren and turned his back to the moving roller, contributing to the accident. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and, when bewildered, drove the roller forward over the plaintiff, causing severe injuries. The defendant did not call the insured driver to testify, leaving certain negligent conduct unexplained. On a conspectus of the evidence, the court found that the defendant was 60% negligent and the plaintiff 40%. The quantum of damages was calculated accordingly, and...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 241
Parties
Plaintiff: Ettienne Simons Steyn; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2024
Case Number
1233/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds in part; damages apportioned 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.
Judges
Reinders
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Damages Act, Road Accident Fund Act, Contributory Negligence, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Apportionment of Damages Act Road Accident Fund Act Contributory Negligence Personal Injury Quantum of Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ettienne Simons Steyn

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in operating the roller, causing injury to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and to what extent damages should be apportioned.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

Both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The plaintiff, an experienced site foreman, was aware of the hazardous nature of the roller and the safety protocols but failed to heed the warning siren and turned his back to the moving roller, contributing to the accident. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and, when bewildered, drove the roller forward over the plaintiff, causing severe injuries. The defendant did not call the insured driver to testify, leaving certain negligent conduct unexplained. On a conspectus of the evidence, the court found that the defendant was 60% negligent and the plaintiff 40%. The quantum of damages was calculated accordingly, and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds in part; damages apportioned 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.

Orders

  • An apportionment of 60%/40% is awarded in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the merits of the claims against the defendant.
  • The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a capital amount of R 4 029 180.00, constituted as follows: past and future loss of income R 5 215 300.00; general damages R 1 500 000.00; subtotal R 6 715 300.00; less 40% apportionment (R 2 686 120.00); total R 4 029 180.00.