Van Der Merwe v Road Accident Fund (16420/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 287 (12 May 2015)

Van Der Merwe v Road Accident Fund (16420/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 287 (12 May 2015)

The court found that the plaintiff was not negligent and could not reasonably have anticipated or avoided the collision with the unlit stationary truck. The evidence established that the plaintiff was blinded by an oncoming vehicle, the road was dark and unlit, and the truck had no lights or reflectors. There was no proof that the plaintiff was driving at excessive speed or failed to keep a proper lookout. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence. Accordingly, apportionment does not apply and the plaintiff is entitled to full damages.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 287
Parties
Plaintiff: MJ Van Der Merwe; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Case Number
16420/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds in full; defendant ordered to pay full damages and costs.
Judges
PD Moseamo
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Apportionment of Liability
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Quantum of Damages Apportionment of Liability

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJ Van Der Merwe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was negligent and whether apportionment of damages should apply.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the collision with the stationary truck.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving contributory negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not negligent and could not reasonably have anticipated or avoided the collision with the unlit stationary truck. The evidence established that the plaintiff was blinded by an oncoming vehicle, the road was dark and unlit, and the truck had no lights or reflectors. There was no proof that the plaintiff was driving at excessive speed or failed to keep a proper lookout. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence. Accordingly, apportionment does not apply and the plaintiff is entitled to full damages.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds in full; defendant ordered to pay full damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R2,050,569.16 on or before 28 May 2015 to the trust account of Marais Basson Inc.
  • The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with a 100% undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for future medical and related costs arising from the accident.