Wessels v Road Accident Fund (20363/09) [2015] ZAGPPHC 169 (20 March 2015)

Wessels v Road Accident Fund (20363/09) [2015] ZAGPPHC 169 (20 March 2015)

The court found that both drivers were familiar with the road and that the collision occurred on a curve with limited visibility due to vegetation. The evidence regarding the point of impact and speed was conflicting, but the physical evidence and photographs suggested the collision likely occurred near the middle of the road. The plaintiff's claim that the uphill was very steep was not supported by the photographs. Both drivers failed to take sufficient evasive action to avoid the collision, and the existence of brake marks supported the plaintiff's attempt to avoid impact. However, the insured driver could also have swerved further left. Applying the principles from Jadezweni and Van...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 169
Parties
Plaintiff: John William Wessels; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2015
Case Number
20363/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Liability apportioned: 40% to the plaintiff, 60% to the insured driver. Costs on merits awarded to plaintiff. Quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
Tlhapi V.V
Legal Topics
Road Accident Claim, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Damages, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Claim Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Liability Damages Burden 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Wessels

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver was negligent in causing the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances.
  3. 3 How liability should be apportioned between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both drivers were familiar with the road and that the collision occurred on a curve with limited visibility due to vegetation. The evidence regarding the point of impact and speed was conflicting, but the physical evidence and photographs suggested the collision likely occurred near the middle of the road. The plaintiff's claim that the uphill was very steep was not supported by the photographs. Both drivers failed to take sufficient evasive action to avoid the collision, and the existence of brake marks supported the plaintiff's attempt to avoid impact. However, the insured driver could also have swerved further left. Applying the principles from Jadezweni and Van...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: 40% to the plaintiff, 60% to the insured driver. Costs on merits awarded to plaintiff. Quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • There was contributory negligence on the part of both drivers: 40% attributable to the plaintiff and 60% to the insured driver.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs in respect of the merits on a party and party scale.