Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company; Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Aviation Insurance Company (79/85) [1985] ZASCA 61; [1985] 2 All SA 428 (A) (30 May 1985)

Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd. and Another v Aviation Insurance Company; Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd and Another v Aviation Insurance Company (79/85) [1985] ZASCA 61; [1985] 2 All SA 428 (A) (30 May 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurer failed to discharge the onus of proving that the pilot was negligent or that he breached the Air Navigation Regulations or the Rules of the Air Regulations. The expert evidence presented by the appellants provided a plausible hypothesis consistent with the facts and no negligence. The insurer's alternative explanations were improbable and unsupported by the evidence. As a result, the appellants succeeded in showing a balance of probability in favour of the pilot's non-negligence, and the appeal was upheld.

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 61
Parties
Appellant: Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Gordon Lang & Richard Anthony Lyons; Respondent: Aviation Insurance Company
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1985
Case Number
79/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment of the trial court set aside.
Judges
Trengove, Nicholas, Hefer, Galgut, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Aviation Accident, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Delict Negligence Onus of Proof Aviation Accident Expert Evidence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bates & Lloyd Aviation (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Gordon Lang & Richard Anthony Lyons

Appellant

Aviation Insurance Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Consolidated Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the pilot.
  2. 2 Whether the pilot committed breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations and the Rules of the Air Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insurer failed to discharge the onus of proving that the pilot was negligent or that he breached the Air Navigation Regulations or the Rules of the Air Regulations. The expert evidence presented by the appellants provided a plausible hypothesis consistent with the facts and no negligence. The insurer's alternative explanations were improbable and unsupported by the evidence. As a result, the appellants succeeded in showing a balance of probability in favour of the pilot's non-negligence, and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment of the trial court set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division is set aside.