Tony's Truck Centre (Pty) Ltd v Hendricks (4102/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 604 (6 December 2010)

Tony's Truck Centre (Pty) Ltd v Hendricks (4102/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 604 (6 December 2010)

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to slow down sufficiently or stop when approaching a well-lit and obviously hazardous scene. The evidence established that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, which impaired his judgment and reaction. The defendant did not discharge the onus of proving any contributory negligence by the plaintiff or its servants. Even if there was negligence by the traffic police in failing to provide additional warnings, such negligence was irrelevant as between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the damages sustained, calculated as the VAT-exclusive repair cost.

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 604
Parties
Plaintiff: Tony's Truck Centre (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Wayne Monray Hendricks
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2010
Case Number
4102/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for damages and costs.
Judges
A G Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages Assessment, Contributory Negligence, Road Traffic Collision
Delict Negligence Damages Assessment Contributory Negligence Road Traffic 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony's Truck Centre (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Wayne Monray Hendricks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in causing the collision with the plaintiff's vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff or its servants contributed to the negligence causing the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the damages sustained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was negligent in failing to slow down sufficiently or stop when approaching a well-lit and obviously hazardous scene. The evidence established that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, which impaired his judgment and reaction. The defendant did not discharge the onus of proving any contributory negligence by the plaintiff or its servants. Even if there was negligence by the traffic police in failing to provide additional warnings, such negligence was irrelevant as between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the damages sustained, calculated as the VAT-exclusive repair cost.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for damages and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in plaintiff's favour against the defendant in the sum of R209 026,58, together with interest a tempore morae from date of judgment to date of payment.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit as between party and party, save that such costs shall include only two day's trial costs.