South Africa Case Law

Mathews v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (35083/2019)

Mathews v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (35083/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 887 (4 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35083/2019

Judge

Mdalana-Mayisela

The court found that the plaintiff proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he was a passenger on the defendant's train, was pushed out through an open door while the train was in motion, and sustained injuries as a result. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence or provide credible alternative explanations. Applying the Constitutional Court's principles in Mashongwa, the defendant's omission to ensure that train doors were closed while in motion constituted negligence and wrongfulness. The omission was closely connected to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, establishing le…

Source excerpt

• Public Carrier Liability
• Negligence
• Wrongfulness
• Legal Causation
• Train Safety
• Open Train Doors

Maphela v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (834/021)

Maphela v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (834/021) [2023] ZAWCHC 137 (9 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

834/021

Judge

M Pangarker

The defendant, as a public carrier and organ of State, owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of rail commuters by complying with operating instructions requiring train doors to be closed while in motion. The evidence established that the train travelled with its doors open, exposing passengers to foreseeable risks, including being struck by objects from outside. The plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger who, due to overcrowding, stood at the open door and was struck by a stone, causing him to fall from the train and suffer serious injuries. The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to pr…

Source excerpt

• Public Carrier Liability
• Negligence
• Contributory Negligence
• Causation
• Train Safety
• Specific Performance

Chikwanda v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (76681/2019)

Chikwanda v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (76681/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 756 (10 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76681/2019

Judge

de Vos

The court found that PRASA was negligent in operating a moving train with open doors, a well-established basis for liability in South African law. The plaintiff's version was accepted as credible and probable, supported by consistent testimony and the physical impossibility of her injuries occurring through closed doors. The defendant's witness was found unreliable and inconsistent. The criminal attack and the plaintiff's defensive actions did not break the chain of causation, as confirmed by Constitutional Court precedent. No evidence supported contributory negligence. PRASA is therefore lia…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Causation
• Contributory Negligence
• Public Transport Liability
• Bodily Injury
• Train Safety

Mohlala v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (41178/2016)

Mohlala v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (41178/2016) [2022] ZAGPJHC 119 (4 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41178/2016

Judge

Twala

The High Court held PRASA liable for injuries suffered by a passenger after finding its train-safety failures and witness contradictions supported the plaintiff’s version.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Public Carrier Liability
• Train Safety
• Wrongfulness
• Quantum Separation

C W obo Minor (I C) v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8283/2018)

C W obo Minor (I C) v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8283/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 205 (28 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8283/2018

Judge

Z Carelse

The High Court held PRASA liable after finding that a minor was pushed from a moving train with open doors at Mayfair station, causing an ankle injury.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Personal Injury
• Train Safety
• Separation Of Liability And Quantum
• Duty-of-care

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Moabelo (1082/2016)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Moabelo (1082/2016) [2017] ZASCA 144; [2017] 4 All SA 648 (SCA) (2 October 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1082/2016

Judges

Ponnan, Leach, Seriti, Mokgohloa, Mbatha

The SCA considered whether PRASA was liable for injuries to a passenger who said he was pushed from an overcrowded train with open doors.

• Negligence
• Public Carrier Liability
• Legal Causation
• Wrongfulness
• Foreseeability
• Train Safety

Zulu v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (33073/2016)

Zulu v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (33073/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 468 (29 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33073/2016

Judge

Thobane

The court held PRASA liable for injuries after finding the plaintiff was a lawful passenger and the train departed with doors open, with inadequate safety controls.

• Negligence
• Public Transport Liability
• Duty Of Care
• Burden Of Proof
• Train Safety
• Costs Order

Makgopa v Passenger Rail of South Africa (9830/2015)

Makgopa v Passenger Rail of South Africa (9830/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 506 (3 June 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

9830/2015

Judge

SL Magardie

The High Court held PRASA liable on the merits after finding a passenger was pushed from a moving train with open doors and that PRASA failed to prevent foreseeable harm.

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Public Carrier Liability
• Personal Injury
• Train Safety
• Separation Of Merits And Quantum

Maruka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8905/2014)

Maruka v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8905/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 213 (15 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8905/2014

Judge

Msibi S M

The court found that the plaintiff was a lawful passenger on the defendant's train and was pushed out of the moving train due to overcrowding while the doors were open. The defendant failed to call relevant witnesses to rebut the plaintiff's version and did not provide evidence that the train doors were closed. Applying the test for negligence, the court held that PRASA owed a duty of care to its passengers, which included ensuring that train doors were closed while in motion. The defendant's omission to close the doors created a foreseeable risk of harm, and reasonable steps to prevent such…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Duty Of Care
• Public Carrier Liability
• Train Safety
• Personal Injury

Chauke v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8394/13)

Chauke v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (8394/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1075 (9 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8394/13

Judge

Motepe

High Court delict claim over injuries sustained when a passenger fell from an overcrowded train with open doors. The court found PRASA negligent and liable for 100% of damages.

• Negligence
• Train Safety
• Contributory Negligence
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Personal Injury
• Public Transport Liability