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
Mudau v Road Accident Fund (278/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 553 (11 June 2024)
Road Accident Fund claim dismissed after the court found the plaintiff failed to prove negligence and had not kept a proper lookout when overtaking.
De Kock v Road Accident Fund (17211/2018) [2024] ZAWCHC 86 (20 March 2024)
The court found that both the insured driver and the plaintiff were negligent. The insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not indicate his intention to turn right, thereby failing to warn following traffic and observe the plaintiff in his mirrors. The plaintiff, however, was also negligent by overtaking on a painted island, failing to keep a proper lookout, and not maintaining a safe following distance. The evidence established that the plaintiff could have avoided the collision had she been attentive to the insured driver's actions. The court rejected the argument that the in…
Source excerpt
Mazangwa v Road Accident Fund (A598/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 435 (7 August 2020)
The High Court upheld an appeal in a Road Accident Fund claim and apportioned fault equally after finding both the pedestrian and driver negligent.
Mkhabo and Another v Road Accident Fund (37685/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 493 (6 December 2019)
The court found that the first plaintiff was not negligent in entering the intersection when the light turned green, as his view was obscured and he was entitled to rely on the assumption that other road users would obey the signals. There was no evidence that he entered against a red light, nor that he could have avoided the collision after the taxi stopped. The bus driver, by contrast, was found to have entered the intersection against an amber or red light, at speed, and failed to appreciate the legal meaning of the amber signal. Eyewitness evidence from bus passengers corroborated that th…
Source excerpt
Mosia and Another v Road Accident Fund (3484/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 94 (24 May 2019)
The court held the Road Accident Fund liable after finding the insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and acted negligently in the collision.
Marais v Road Accident Fund (128/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 40 (25 April 2019)
The High Court held that the insured driver’s sudden U-turn caused the collision and that the plaintiff did not contribute to it. Judgment on the merits went to the plaintiff.
Van Eeden v Road Accident Fund (19294/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 685 (14 September 2018)
The court found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The evidence established that the plaintiff kept a proper lookout and was walking in the road only because the pavement was too narrow for the pram, which constituted a sufficient reason under the applicable regulation. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the accident. The insured driver was solely negligent, and the defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages.
Source excerpt
Van Eeden v Road Accident Fund (19294/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 783 (14 September 2018)
High Court held the Road Accident Fund 100% liable after finding no contributory negligence by a pedestrian injured while walking on a narrow roadside pavement.
Manbamela v Road Accident Fund (RAF168/16) [2018] ZANWHC 18 (5 July 2018)
The court found the plaintiff and his passenger to be credible witnesses whose evidence was consistent and corroborated. The insured driver, by contrast, was a single witness whose evidence was treated with caution and found to be unreliable and inconsistent. On the probabilities, the insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout, was likely travelling at high speed, and entered the intersection when the plaintiff had the right of way. The plaintiff acted as a reasonable driver, reduced speed, and observed the insured driver approaching. The court held that the insured driver's negligence wa…
Source excerpt
Abrahams v Afrika (2368/2009) [2018] ZAECPEHC 26 (26 June 2018)
The court found that the defendant was aware of the blinding effect of the sun on the R75 road, having driven it regularly. Despite this, he did not reduce his speed or take additional precautions. The evidence showed that the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout and only realized the truck was stationary when he was almost upon it, despite brake marks indicating he should have seen it earlier. The court rejected the defendant's claim of a sudden emergency, noting that the conditions were foreseeable and required a reasonable driver to adjust speed and vigilance. The defendant's failure…
Source excerpt
Explore more
