South Africa Case Law

Mbele v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/44039)

Mbele v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2019/44039) [2022] ZAGPJHC 880 (8 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/44039

Judge

Constantinides

The Court found that the Plaintiff was a lawful passenger with a valid ticket and that PRASA owed him a duty of care as a public carrier. The Plaintiff's version, that he was pushed while alighting from an overcrowded train with open doors, was found more probable than PRASA's version that he was train surfing. PRASA failed to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence, did not provide expert testimony, photographs, or a sketch plan to support its assertions, and its own witnesses contradicted each other regarding the operation of train doors. The Court held that PRASA did not take reasonable steps to pr…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Public Carrier Liability
• Train Passenger Safety
• Foreseeability
• Onus Of Proof

Chaka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2081/2018)

Chaka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2081/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 117 (17 April 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2081/2018

Judge

R M Keightley

The High Court dismissed a passenger’s negligence claim against PRASA after finding his version of a train-door accident improbable and unsupported by the evidence.

• Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Mutually Destructive Versions
• Train Passenger Safety
• Delict
• Onus-of-proof

Letabola v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2152/11)

Letabola v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2152/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 154 (16 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2152/11

Judge

Reyneke AJ

The court found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the plaintiff was pushed from inside the first coach through the open door of the moving train as it entered Tembisa station, resulting in his leg being caught between the train and the platform. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence and did not call the train driver to testify. The court held that the defendant, through its personnel, failed to take reasonable steps to ensure all doors were closed before departure and only opened at a safe moment, and failed to supervise and protect passengers. The negligent conduct…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Duty Of Care
• Train Passenger Safety
• Personal Injury

Malatjie v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2377/11)

Malatjie v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (2377/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 60 (20 April 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2377/11

Judge

AP Ledwaba

The High Court dismissed a passenger’s delict claim against PRASA after finding he failed to prove the train doors were open and that the agency was negligent.

• Negligence
• Train Passenger Safety
• Burden Of Proof
• Delictual Liability
• Delict
• Train-passenger-safety