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
Dangazele v Road Accident Fund (1756/18) [2020] ZAECMHC 6 (13 February 2020)
The High Court found the Road Accident Fund liable after accepting that the insured driver negligently drove on the wrong side of the road and caused a head-on collision.
Loni v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape Bhisho (CCT54/17) [2018] ZACC 2; 2018 (3) SA 335 (CC); 2018 (6) BCLR 659 (CC) (22 February 2018)
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant had knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim long before consulting an independent medical professional. The objective standard under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires that a reasonable person in the applicant's position would have suspected sub-standard treatment and sought further advice, given the ongoing pain, infection, and possession of his medical file. The Court distinguished the facts from those in Links, finding that the applicant's personal experience and available records were sufficient to trigger prescription.…
Source excerpt
De Villiers v S (CA&R96/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 46 (9 December 2016)
The appeal court found that the trial court made several factual errors in its assessment of the evidence, including relying on its own knowledge of the area and failing to properly consider the appellant's uncontested testimony and the statutory factors relevant to negligence. The appellant's version was not discredited in cross-examination and was consistent with the expert evidence that the police vehicle was travelling at a high speed. The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not have foreseen that her conduct could cause the collision, and even if she mad…
Source excerpt
De Villiers en S (CA&R96/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 64 (9 December 2016)
The appellate court found that the trial court made several factual errors and misapplied the reasonable person test. The appellant's evidence was not undermined in cross-examination and was consistent with the State's expert testimony regarding the speed of the police vehicle. The appellant had regularly used the route and safely executed U-turns under similar circumstances. The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would not have foreseen the possibility of a collision and would not have taken additional precautions. Even if the appellant made an error in judgment…
Source excerpt
Hlatshwayo v Road Accident Fund (15/01693) [2016] ZAGPJHC 43 (18 March 2016)
The High Court found the plaintiff was not negligent in a wet-road collision and held that the unknown Mercedes Benz driver’s reckless overtaking caused the accident.
Ivaura Estates (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Council, Department of Roads & Transport, Mpumalanga (240/10) [2011] ZASCA 9 (10 March 2011)
The appeal, arising from fire damage to mango trees, was dismissed. The court held that negligence was not established because the appellant’s own workers took over fire suppression.
Steyn v LSA Motors Ltd. (207/1992) [1993] ZASCA 163; 1994 (1) SA 49 (AD); [1994] 1 All SA 483 (A) (30 September 1993)
The court held that a golf-course sign for a hole-in-one prize was not an offer to amateur players, so no contract arose when the appellant scored.
Explore more
