Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd v SA Botswana Hauliers (Pty) Ltd (634/93) [1996] ZASCA 16 (19 March 1996)

Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd v SA Botswana Hauliers (Pty) Ltd (634/93) [1996] ZASCA 16 (19 March 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the available evidence, including the position of the gouge mark and the vehicles after the collision, was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of either driver. The expert opinions were largely speculative and did not provide a reliable basis for drawing an inference of negligence. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply in the circumstances, as the facts did not justify an inference of negligence. The appeal was upheld, and absolution from the instance was ordered in respect of both the claim and the counterclaim.

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 16
Parties
Appellant: Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SA Botswana Hauliers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 1996
Case Number
634/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Absolution from the instance ordered for both claim and counterclaim. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Scott, Plewman
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Motor Vehicle Collision
Delict Negligence Vicarious Liability Res Ipsa Loquitur Motor Vehicle Collision

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanker Services (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

SA Botswana Hauliers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver.
  2. 2 Whether the inference of negligence could be drawn from the position of the vehicles and the gouge mark on the road.
  3. 3 Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied to the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the available evidence, including the position of the gouge mark and the vehicles after the collision, was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of either driver. The expert opinions were largely speculative and did not provide a reliable basis for drawing an inference of negligence. The maxim res ipsa loquitur did not apply in the circumstances, as the facts did not justify an inference of negligence. The appeal was upheld, and absolution from the instance was ordered in respect of both the claim and the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Absolution from the instance ordered for both claim and counterclaim. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with absolution from the instance in respect of the claim-in-convention and the claim-in-reconvention.