Van der Schyff v RAF (9952/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 966 (20 October 2017)

Van der Schyff v RAF (9952/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 966 (20 October 2017)

The court found that the only version before it was that of the plaintiff, who was a credible and reliable witness. The defendant failed to present any evidence or effectively challenge the plaintiff's account. On the plaintiff's version, the insured driver failed to signal his intention to turn and did not ensure it was safe to do so, while the plaintiff properly signalled and kept a proper lookout. There was no basis to find contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is held 100% liable for any proven damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the accident.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 966
Parties
Plaintiff: DC Van der Schyff; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2017
Case Number
9952/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Defendant held 100% liable for any proven damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Quantum of damages separated and postponed sine die.
Judges
Brand
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accident, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Fault, Separation of Merits and Quantum
Delict Motor Vehicle Accident Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Fault Separation of Merits and Quantum

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DC Van der Schyff

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant proved contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the motor vehicle accident.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff complied with the duty to signal and keep a proper lookout before overtaking.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only version before it was that of the plaintiff, who was a credible and reliable witness. The defendant failed to present any evidence or effectively challenge the plaintiff's account. On the plaintiff's version, the insured driver failed to signal his intention to turn and did not ensure it was safe to do so, while the plaintiff properly signalled and kept a proper lookout. There was no basis to find contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is held 100% liable for any proven damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the accident.

Court Disposition

Defendant held 100% liable for any proven damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Quantum of damages separated and postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The issue of quantum of damages is separated from the merits and its determination postponed sine die.
  • The defendant is held 100% liable for any proven damages resulting from the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.