South Africa Case Law

Ferreira v The MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Limpopo Provincial Government (20077/2013)

Ferreira v The MEC for the Department of Roads and Transport, Limpopo Provincial Government (20077/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1173 (29 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20077/2013

Judge

Thobane

The court found that the road on which the accident occurred was in a poor state, with potholes and edge breaks, and that the defendant failed to maintain it adequately or to warn road users of its dangerous condition. Objective evidence, including videos and photographs taken immediately after the accident, confirmed the presence of potholes at the scene. The defendant's witnesses were found not credible, as their testimony was inconsistent with objective facts and repair records. The court rejected the defendant's argument that speed or failure to negotiate a curve was the cause of the acci…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Road Maintenance Liability
• Wrongful Omission
• Causation
• Duty Of Care
• Public Authority Liability

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport v Botha (20811/2014)

MEC for the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport v Botha (20811/2014) [2016] ZASCA 20 (17 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20811/2014

Judges

Leach, Swain, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over liability after a fatal collision with a fallen tree on a public road, while rejecting an unsupported general duty finding.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Public Authority Liability
• Road Safety
• Duty-of-care
• Public-authority-liability

Matshoge v Premier of N.W. Province and Others (279/12)

Matshoge v Premier of N.W. Province and Others (279/12) [2014] ZANWHC 53 (12 December 2014)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

279/12

Judge

Kgoele

The court found that the first and second defendants, as responsible provincial authorities, failed in their duty to maintain the road and provide adequate warning of hazardous potholes. Expert and lay evidence established that the road was in a deplorable condition, with severe potholes posing real danger to users. The defendants' denials were unsupported by credible evidence, and their alternative explanations were speculative. The plaintiff's account of the accident was corroborated by witnesses and consistent with the physical evidence. The court held that the defendants' negligent omissi…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Road Maintenance Liability
• Apportionment Of Damages
• Duty Of Care
• Causation
• Public Authority Liability

Windvogel v Mpumalanga Provincial Government and Others (22040/2010)

Windvogel v Mpumalanga Provincial Government and Others (22040/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 485 (10 July 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22040/2010

Judge

De Vries AJ

The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Defendants were negligent or that their conduct caused the accident. The evidence regarding the presence and effect of loose aggregate on the road was inconsistent and insufficient to establish causation. Expert testimony for the Defendants indicated that the Plaintiff's vehicle would not have lost control due to aggregate alone at the alleged speed, and other possible causes, such as speed, animals, or unforeseen hazards, could not be excluded. The absence of a barrier or warning signs did not, on the facts,…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Road Maintenance
• Public Authority Liability
• Quantum Separation
• Expert Evidence