Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mrawuzeli v Road Accident Fund (509/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 151 (21 September 2017)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable on the merits after uncontested evidence showed the plaintiff was struck as a pedestrian by the insured vehicle.
Lehlehla v Road Accident Fund (6114/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 143 (10 August 2012)
The court found that the truck driver was negligent by failing to activate the emergency lights and by placing the warning triangle too close to the stationary truck, thereby failing to adequately warn oncoming motorists. The evidence established that the truck was partially obstructing the road in darkness, creating a foreseeable risk of collision. The plaintiff only needed to prove one percent negligence on the part of the truck driver to hold the defendant liable for all damages. The limitation clause and the Constitutional Court's decision in Mvumvu were not applicable, as the claim was b…
Source excerpt
Van Staden v Road Accident Fund (EL 472/03, ECD 872/03, ECJ73) [2006] ZAECHC 76 (12 December 2006)
The court found the plaintiff to be a credible and honest witness whose version aligned with the probabilities. The insured driver admitted to negligent conduct, including failing to keep a proper lookout and indicating his intention to turn right only at a late stage. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to assume he could safely overtake the insured vehicle, which had been travelling on the far left of the lane with no indication of an impending right turn. The emergency arose only when the insured vehicle's indicator was activated and it began turning, at which point the plaintif…
Source excerpt
Matsiba v Santam Versekerings Maatskappy Bpk. (245/96) [1997] ZASCA 63; 1997 (4) SA 832 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 64 (A); (21 August 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the 'Mirage Ride On' lawnmower was not designed or adapted to be propelled or drawn on a road, but rather for the specific purpose of cutting grass. Its features, such as limited speed, lack of lights, indicators, and horn, and the provision of a seat for operational convenience, did not transform it into a vehicle intended for road use. The court found no material difference between the lawnmower and the mobile forklift considered in Chauke v Santam Ltd. The appellant's concession that her case could not succeed if the Chauke criteria were applied was ac…
Source excerpt
Explore more
