Van Blommestein and Another v Road Accident Fund (6108/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 322 (23 August 2009)

Van Blommestein and Another v Road Accident Fund (6108/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 322 (23 August 2009)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the insured vehicle approached from north to south; the evidence of the insured driver and a neutral witness was preferred, establishing that the insured vehicle came from east to west. The probabilities and credibility assessment led to the finding that the robot was green for the insured driver at the time of impact. However, the insured driver, having seen the first plaintiff's vehicle approaching and recognizing the danger, failed to apply brakes or take reasonable steps to avoid the collision, thus acting negligently. The first plaintiff was found to be more negligent, having entered the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 322
Parties
Plaintiff: Johanna Jacoba van Blommestein; Plaintiff: Helena Francina Jocina Coleske; Defendant: The Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2009
Case Number
6108/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Judgment granted for 30% of the first plaintiff's proven damages and 100% of the second plaintiff's proven damages; defendant to pay costs.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Onus of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johanna Jacoba van Blommestein

Plaintiff

Helena Francina Jocina Coleske

Plaintiff

The Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was coming from north to south or east to west before the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the first plaintiff was contributorily negligent and to what extent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the insured vehicle approached from north to south; the evidence of the insured driver and a neutral witness was preferred, establishing that the insured vehicle came from east to west. The probabilities and credibility assessment led to the finding that the robot was green for the insured driver at the time of impact. However, the insured driver, having seen the first plaintiff's vehicle approaching and recognizing the danger, failed to apply brakes or take reasonable steps to avoid the collision, thus acting negligently. The first plaintiff was found to be more negligent, having entered the...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted for 30% of the first plaintiff's proven damages and 100% of the second plaintiff's proven damages; defendant to pay costs.

Orders

  • Judgment in 30% of the first plaintiff's proven damages is granted.
  • Judgment in 100% of the second plaintiff's proven damages is granted.