Case: Masego v Road Accident Fund
Should a defense be raised in terms of the Apportionment of Damages Act as to reduce a pedestrian’s compensational claim it is not merely sufficient to aver such contributory negligence in the absence of discharging the onus of establishing a prima facie case therefore.
In this instance factual evidence of any negligence attributable to a claimant needs to be adduced as to rebut that of the claimant as judgment may very well be given in any civil proceedings on the evidence of any single competent and credible witness.
by Yolandi Vosloo (LL. B); source: https://www.lexisnexis.co.za/
Maseko v Road Accident Fund
(2019) JOL 41294 (GP)
Case Number: 3799941 / 17
Judgment Date: 06 / 02 / 2019
Country: South Africa
Jurisdiction: High Court
Division: Gauteng, Pretoria
Bench: A Andrews AJ
Keywords: Personal Injury / Delict — Hit and run collision — Claim for compensation — Liability
Mini Summary:
The plaintiff claimed compensation for injury sustained to him whilst he was a pedestrian knocked over by an unknown insured motor vehicle with unknown registration. The identity of neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle in question was established. The plaintiff pleaded that the sole cause of the collision was the negligence of the unidentified insured driver of the unidentified vehicle.
Held that the only issue for determination ‘related to the defendant’s liability for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. The question of liability turned on whether the driver of the vehicle was negligent and whether such negligence caused the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s evidence was not challenged to any meaningful degree and was generally credible. On a balance of probabilities, his evidence established that he was hit by a vehicle travelling at speed while he was walking on a gravel sidewalk. The fact that the point of impact was on the pedestrian sidewalk was sufficient to make a finding of negligence in respect of the conduct of this driver. In the result the defendant was liable for the loss or damages suffered by him as a result of the collision. The defendant was held one hundred percent liable for the plaintiffs proven damages arising as a result of the collision.
Download the case summary here in PDF (https://www.lexisnexis.co.za/)