Tau v RAF (42687/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 216 (14 March 2017)

Tau v RAF (42687/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 216 (14 March 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the driving of the bus as required by the Road Accident Fund Act, and there was no evidence of negligent driving. The malfunction of the fire extinguisher was not causally connected to the driving of the vehicle. However, the court held that the owners of the bus were negligent in failing to ensure the fire extinguisher was properly serviced and maintained, as there was no evidence that the specific extinguisher had been serviced. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing the inference of negligence from the facts. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities, and the owners...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 216
Parties
Plaintiff: Tryphina Mmaboshadi Tau; Defendant: RAF; Defendant: Owners of the bus
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2017
Case Number
42687/2012
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Merits and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund is dismissed with costs. Plaintiff's claim against the bus owners succeeds with costs.
Judges
E Swartz
Legal Topics
Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Road Accident Fund Act, Causation, Duty of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Road Accident Fund Act Causation Duty of Care

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tryphina Mmaboshadi Tau

Plaintiff

RAF

Defendant

Owners of the bus

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Merits and Quantum Separated; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff arose out of the driving of the insured motor vehicle as required by the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether negligence can be attributed to the defendants (owners of the bus).
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the owners.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the driving of the bus as required by the Road Accident Fund Act, and there was no evidence of negligent driving. The malfunction of the fire extinguisher was not causally connected to the driving of the vehicle. However, the court held that the owners of the bus were negligent in failing to ensure the fire extinguisher was properly serviced and maintained, as there was no evidence that the specific extinguisher had been serviced. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applied, allowing the inference of negligence from the facts. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities, and the owners...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund is dismissed with costs. Plaintiff's claim against the bus owners succeeds with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim against the Road Accident Fund is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiff's claim against the first and second defendants (owners) succeeds with costs.