Wolmarans v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. (268/82) [1984] ZASCA 24; [1985] 1 All SA 311 (A) (23 March 1984)

Wolmarans v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk. (268/82) [1984] ZASCA 24; [1985] 1 All SA 311 (A) (23 March 1984)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove that Nortje, the bus driver, was negligent. The evidence established that Nortje's view was obstructed by a truck and trailer, and he could not reasonably have anticipated that the appellant would attempt to cross the busy street in front of oncoming traffic. Even if Nortje had seen the appellant earlier, there was no evidence that he could have avoided the collision by reasonable means. The primary cause of the accident was the appellant's own reckless attempt to cross the road. The trial court's order of absolution from the instance was therefore correct, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 24
Parties
Appellant: Rudolph Machiel Wolmarans; Respondent: Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 1984
Case Number
268/82
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; absolution from the instance confirmed.
Judges
Corbett, Trengove, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Negligence, Third Party Liability, Onus of Proof, Road Accident
Delict Negligence Third Party Liability Onus of Proof Road Accident

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudolph Machiel Wolmarans

Appellant

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bus driver, Nortje, failed to exercise the degree of care required of a reasonable driver.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved that Nortje could have avoided the collision by reasonable conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly granted absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove that Nortje, the bus driver, was negligent. The evidence established that Nortje's view was obstructed by a truck and trailer, and he could not reasonably have anticipated that the appellant would attempt to cross the busy street in front of oncoming traffic. Even if Nortje had seen the appellant earlier, there was no evidence that he could have avoided the collision by reasonable means. The primary cause of the accident was the appellant's own reckless attempt to cross the road. The trial court's order of absolution from the instance was therefore correct, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; absolution from the instance confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of absolution from the instance is confirmed.