South Africa Case Law

Hlazo v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (27469/2021)

Hlazo v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (27469/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 923 (20 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27469/2021

Judge

Mali

The court found the plaintiff's version credible and satisfactory, supported by his explanation of overcrowding and inability to disembark at Isando. The defendant's witness was unreliable, provided contradictory evidence, and failed to explain material discrepancies in the liability report. The defendant did not call further witnesses to corroborate its version. Applying the principle from Mashongwa v Prasa, PRASA's failure to ensure the train doors were closed while in motion constituted negligence. On a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was pushed from the train due to overcrowding a…

Source excerpt

• Public Carrier Liability
• Negligence
• Personal Injury
• Train Accident

Mhlongo v Passenger Rail Agency (20594/2014)

Mhlongo v Passenger Rail Agency (20594/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 353 (15 December 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20594/2014

Judge

Klaaren

The court held that PRASA is liable for injuries sustained by the applicant when she was pushed out of a stationary train with open doors between stations. The situation was analogous to moving train cases where open doors create a foreseeable risk of harm. The court found the applicant's evidence credible and corroborated, establishing that the doors were open throughout the journey and that PRASA failed in its duty to close them. The risk of injury from open doors in a train stopped between stations is significant and foreseeable, and PRASA's omission constituted negligence. Factual and leg…

Source excerpt

• Public Carrier Liability
• Negligence
• Foreseeability Of Harm
• Train Accident
• Open Doors
• Duty Of Care

Mbolambi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (10219/12)

Mbolambi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (10219/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 865 (20 November 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10219/12

Judge

NP Mngqibisa-Thusi

The High Court found PRASA liable for a fatal train accident after accepting that the deceased was pushed from a moving train with open doors.

• Negligence
• Loss Of Support
• Train Accident
• Duty Of Care
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Loss-of-support

Manjo v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (53316/2013)

Manjo v Passenger Rail Agency South Africa (53316/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 128 (12 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53316/2013

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court found that the plaintiff proved he fell from a crowded train and held the defendant 100% liable for his injuries and costs.

• Personal Injury
• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Train Accident
• Delict
• Personal-injury

Morare v SA Rail Commuter Corporation Limited (585/2013)

Morare v SA Rail Commuter Corporation Limited (585/2013) [2014] ZASCA 7 (13 March 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

585/2013

Judges

Navsa, Theron, Wallis, Swain, Mathopo

Appeal dismissed after the appellant failed to prove he was a passenger on the respondent’s train when he was injured near Doornfontein Station.

• Negligence
• Burden Of Proof
• Personal Injury
• Train Accident
• Delict
• Burden-of-proof

Moloi v Passenger Agency SA (6942/12)

Moloi v Passenger Agency SA (6942/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 227 (2 August 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6942/12

Judge

Nkosi

The court found the plaintiff proved he was a passenger in the train collision and held the defendant’s denial unsupported, granting the claim with costs.

• Personal Injury
• Proof Of Liability
• Burden Of Proof
• Train Accident
• Personal-injury
• Proof-of-liability

Shongwe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A512/2010)

Shongwe v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A512/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 118 (18 June 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A512/2010

Judges

M W Msimeki, R G Tolmay, C P Rabie

The court found that the train doors were closed when the appellant attempted to board, and that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by trying to board a moving train. The evidence of the respondent's witnesses was accepted as credible, establishing that the train was operating properly and the doors were closed. The appellant's own testimony confirmed his awareness of the risks and his decision to take those risks. The defence of volenti non fit injuria was upheld, and the appellant was found to be 100% negligent for his injuries. There was no contributory negl…

Source excerpt

• Volenti Non Fit Injuria
• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Personal Injury
• Train Accident