Swanepoel v City Council of Johannesburg (93/86) [1986] ZASCA 87 (4 September 1986)

Swanepoel v City Council of Johannesburg (93/86) [1986] ZASCA 87 (4 September 1986)

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the bus driver, Moremi. There was no evidence as to how the appellant came to be in the street or how the collision occurred. Moremi was driving at a moderate speed, maintained his usual distance from the kerb, and was aware of the pedestrians waiting for the traffic lights. There was no indication that any pedestrian intended to enter the street against the lights, nor was there evidence that hooting would have prevented the accident. The court found that the harm suffered by the appellant was not reasonably foreseeable by Moremi, and there was no causal link between his conduct and the...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 87
Parties
Appellant: Irene Swanepoel; Respondent: City Council of Johannesburg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 1986
Case Number
93/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Pedestrian Injury, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Pedestrian Injury Absolution From the Instance

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irene Swanepoel

Appellant

City Council of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's employee, the bus driver, was negligent in causing injury to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in granting absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the bus driver, Moremi. There was no evidence as to how the appellant came to be in the street or how the collision occurred. Moremi was driving at a moderate speed, maintained his usual distance from the kerb, and was aware of the pedestrians waiting for the traffic lights. There was no indication that any pedestrian intended to enter the street against the lights, nor was there evidence that hooting would have prevented the accident. The court found that the harm suffered by the appellant was not reasonably foreseeable by Moremi, and there was no causal link between his conduct and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.