Transnet Ltd t/a Metro Rail v Tshabalala (151/05) [2006] ZASCA 24; [2006] SCA 25 (RSA) ; [2006] 2 All SA 583 (SCA) (22 March 2006)

Transnet Ltd t/a Metro Rail v Tshabalala (151/05) [2006] ZASCA 24; [2006] SCA 25 (RSA) ; [2006] 2 All SA 583 (SCA) (22 March 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent. The defendant's failure to close the train doors created a foreseeable risk that passengers might attempt to board a moving train, while the plaintiff's conduct in chasing and attempting to board the train, especially while intoxicated and after the train had gathered speed, deviated substantially from the conduct of a reasonable person. The trial court's equal apportionment of fault was not supported by the evidence, as the plaintiff's negligence was greater. The appellate court held that it was equitable to reduce the plaintiff's damages by two thirds, reflecting his greater degree of fault. The...

Citation
[2006] SCA 25 (RSA)
Parties
Appellant: Transnet Ltd t/a Metro Rail; Respondent: Lazarus Tshabalala
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Case Number
151/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Johannesburg; Liability and Apportionment of Fault
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court was set aside and replaced with an order reducing the plaintiff's damages by two thirds and awarding costs subject to exclusions.
Judges
Streicher JA, Brand JA, Jafta JA
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages Act, Causation, Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Act Causation 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transnet Ltd t/a Metro Rail

Appellant

Lazarus Tshabalala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Johannesburg; Liability and Apportionment of Fault

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the consequences of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the accident.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's apportionment of fault between the parties was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent. The defendant's failure to close the train doors created a foreseeable risk that passengers might attempt to board a moving train, while the plaintiff's conduct in chasing and attempting to board the train, especially while intoxicated and after the train had gathered speed, deviated substantially from the conduct of a reasonable person. The trial court's equal apportionment of fault was not supported by the evidence, as the plaintiff's negligence was greater. The appellate court held that it was equitable to reduce the plaintiff's damages by two thirds, reflecting his greater degree of fault. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the trial court was set aside and replaced with an order reducing the plaintiff's damages by two thirds and awarding costs subject to exclusions.

Orders

  • Whatever damages the plaintiff may prove to have suffered are to be reduced by two thirds in terms of section 1 of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the plaintiff excluding the costs of Tuesday 30 March 2004 and half of Wednesday 31 March for which a separate costs order has been made.