Thubakgale v PRASA [2023] ZAGPPHC 463; 24580/2019 (13 June 2023)

Thubakgale v PRASA [2023] ZAGPPHC 463; 24580/2019 (13 June 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to board a moving train with closed doors, which was a dangerous act and constituted a voluntary assumption of risk. The evidence of PRASA's witnesses was preferred over the plaintiff's version, which was found to be unreliable and fabricated. The court held that PRASA did not breach its legal duty or act negligently, as its employees acted reasonably and the plaintiff's injuries resulted from his own conduct. The defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, excluding PRASA's liability for the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 463
Parties
Plaintiff: Madimetja Lucas Thubakgale; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Case Number
24580/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Determination; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
M S Makamu
Legal Topics
Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Public Carrier Liability, Negligence, Wrongfulness, Personal Injury
Delict Land and Property Volenti Non Fit Injuria Public Carrier Liability Negligence Wrongfulness Personal Injury

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madimetja Lucas Thubakgale

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Determination; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA breached its legal duty to safeguard the physical wellbeing of the plaintiff as a commuter.
  2. 2 Whether PRASA's employees were negligent in the operation of the train and in ensuring commuter safety.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk by attempting to board a moving train, thereby excluding PRASA's liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to board a moving train with closed doors, which was a dangerous act and constituted a voluntary assumption of risk. The evidence of PRASA's witnesses was preferred over the plaintiff's version, which was found to be unreliable and fabricated. The court held that PRASA did not breach its legal duty or act negligently, as its employees acted reasonably and the plaintiff's injuries resulted from his own conduct. The defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, excluding PRASA's liability for the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed with costs.