Vellem v Road Accident Fund (293/2019) [2020] ZAECELLC 18 (26 May 2020)

Vellem v Road Accident Fund (293/2019) [2020] ZAECELLC 18 (26 May 2020)

The court found that the driver of the truck was negligent. Despite having previously stopped the truck twice to order the plaintiff off, the driver failed to check again before driving a further 340 metres, during which the plaintiff was clinging to the passenger-side steps. The driver’s failure to ensure the plaintiff was not on the truck, given the dangerous circumstances and poor road conditions, fell short of the standard of a reasonable driver. However, the plaintiff also acted negligently by choosing to hold onto the truck as it departed, placing himself in foreseeable danger. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, the court determined that both parties were at...

Citation
[2020] ZAECELLC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Sinethemba Vellem; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Case Number
293/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Defendant found liable for plaintiff’s damages, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory negligence; quantum to be determined.
Judges
JGA Laing
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Onus of Proof
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages 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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinethemba Vellem

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the driver of the truck negligent, thereby causing the plaintiff's injuries.
  2. 2 Did the plaintiff contribute to his own injuries through his conduct.
  3. 3 Should damages be apportioned under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the driver of the truck was negligent. Despite having previously stopped the truck twice to order the plaintiff off, the driver failed to check again before driving a further 340 metres, during which the plaintiff was clinging to the passenger-side steps. The driver’s failure to ensure the plaintiff was not on the truck, given the dangerous circumstances and poor road conditions, fell short of the standard of a reasonable driver. However, the plaintiff also acted negligently by choosing to hold onto the truck as it departed, placing himself in foreseeable danger. Applying the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956, the court determined that both parties were at...

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for plaintiff’s damages, subject to a 25% reduction for contributory negligence; quantum to be determined.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff and is ordered to pay such quantum as will be determined, subject to the reduction below.
  • The quantum, as determined, shall be reduced by 25% in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1)(a) of the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.