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
Smith v Road Accident Fund (2881/2017) [2019] ZAECPEHC 33 (30 May 2019)
The court dismissed a pedestrian’s RAF claim after finding no negligence by the insured driver where the plaintiff was involuntarily pushed into traffic.
Fabrinso v Road Accident Fund (3676/11) [2016] ZAGPJHC 242 (9 September 2016)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable after finding the plaintiff was struck while walking on a pavement and was not negligent.
Ndlangamandla v Road Accident Fund (3562/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 765 (26 October 2015)
The High Court held the Road Accident Fund liable for 100% of a pedestrian plaintiff’s damages after finding an unidentified driver struck him from behind on a pavement.
Mchepu v Road Accident Fund (66306/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 433 (30 May 2014)
The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was negligent in failing to reduce speed and regulate his driving upon seeing the plaintiff crossing the road with a large bag on his head, which obstructed his view, and in exceeding the speed limit on an unlit road. However, the plaintiff was also negligent for crossing the road despite seeing the vehicle approaching at high speed, wearing dark clothes, and failing to exercise reasonable care in the middle of the road. Both parties contributed to the accident, and liability was apportioned accordingly. The plaintiff suc…
Source excerpt
Dlangamandla v Road Accident Fund (3265/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 131; 2011 (5) SA 565 (FB) (14 July 2011)
The court held that the Road Accident Fund was liable after finding the insured driver negligently changed lanes and failed to keep a proper lookout.
Sinqwebo v Road Accident Fund (701/01) [2010] ZAECMHC 11 (14 January 2010)
The court found both parties at fault in a pedestrian–truck collision and apportioned liability 25% to the plaintiff and 75% to the Road Accident Fund.
Ngubane v Road Accident Fund (1461/2004) [2007] ZAKZHC 41 (13 September 2007)
High Court liability judgment in a pedestrian road accident claim, finding the plaintiff 60% contributorily negligent and the defendant liable for 40% of proven damages.
Barnard v Die Padongelukkefonds (3458/06) [2007] ZAECHC 58 (28 August 2007)
The court found that the insured driver was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians and in executing an unlawful U-turn in contravention of traffic regulations. The plaintiff acted reasonably and could not have foreseen the insured driver's unlawful maneuver. There was no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, as she had checked both directions and the road was clear at the time she began crossing. The sole cause of the accident and resulting damages was the insured driver's negligence.
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Gobingca (778/2002) [2007] ZAECHC 38 (7 June 2007)
The court found that the plaintiff was walking on his correct side of the road, off the tarred surface, and that there were obstructions preventing him from moving further away from the road. After the vehicle corrected its erratic movement, the plaintiff was entitled to assume it would continue safely past him. There was no evidence that the plaintiff could or should have taken any further action to avoid the collision. The driver of the vehicle was entirely to blame for the accident, and the plaintiff was not negligent. The trial court's reasoning was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
Road Accident Fund v Mgweba (A3186/02) [2003] ZAGPHC 4 (3 June 2003)
The High Court held that both the insured driver and the pedestrian were negligent in a road accident, apportioning fault 80/20 and adjusting the appeal costs accordingly.
Explore more
