Van Niekerk and Another v Lessing (33378/2013, A716/2016, 623/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 144 (20 March 2020)

Van Niekerk and Another v Lessing (33378/2013, A716/2016, 623/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 144 (20 March 2020)

The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities. The court found that the gate had been designed, manufactured, and installed with generally accepted safety features, had been in regular use for over two years without incident, and had been regularly inspected and maintained. The expert evidence relied upon by the court a quo was speculative and not based on any legal or regulatory standard. The maxim res ipsa loquitur was incorrectly applied, as other evidence was available and a proper expert inspection could have been undertaken. The uncontested evidence of the appellants was preferred, and the respondent's...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 144
Parties
Appellant: Mr Van Niekerk; Appellant: Anna Maria Van Niekerk; Respondent: Jacoba Magdalena Lessing
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2020
Case Number
33378/2013, A716/2016, 623/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability for Damages
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed.
Judges
Strijdom, N.P. Mngqibisa-Thusi, S.A.M Baqwa
Legal Topics
Negligence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Onus of Proof, Expert Evidence, Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Res Ipsa Loquitur Onus of Proof Expert Evidence 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Van Niekerk

Appellant

Anna Maria Van Niekerk

Appellant

Jacoba Magdalena Lessing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Liability for Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were negligent in the design, manufacture, and installation of the sliding gate that injured the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur was correctly applied by the court a quo.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities. The court found that the gate had been designed, manufactured, and installed with generally accepted safety features, had been in regular use for over two years without incident, and had been regularly inspected and maintained. The expert evidence relied upon by the court a quo was speculative and not based on any legal or regulatory standard. The maxim res ipsa loquitur was incorrectly applied, as other evidence was available and a proper expert inspection could have been undertaken. The uncontested evidence of the appellants was preferred, and the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is substituted with an order dismissing the claim.