Automated Summary
Key Facts
A motor vehicle collision occurred on 30 May 2015 at the intersection of Nelson Mandela Drive and Berg Street in Rustenburg. Plaintiff Jonas Manbamela was driving a Renault Sandero along Nelson Mandela Drive with passenger Petrus Mphahlele, while the insured driver K Maleshane was driving a Polo Vivo along Berg Street. Both were wearing seat belts. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. The plaintiff testified he saw the insured driver 16 paces away and had a green light, but the insured driver claimed he had a green light and did not observe the plaintiff until entering the intersection. The Court found the insured driver’s evidence improbable and held the defendant (Road Accident Fund) liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s damages.
Issues
- Whether the insured driver was casually negligent in relation to the collision.
- Whether the plaintiff contributed to the accident through his own negligence.
Holdings
- The court determined that the insured driver was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and driving at a high speed, which led to the collision. The insured driver's evidence was found to be improbable, and his actions did not meet the standard of a reasonable driver.
- The court concluded that the plaintiff did not contribute to the collision. The plaintiff was found to have kept a proper lookout, reduced speed at the intersection, and acted in accordance with the standard of a reasonable driver. The plaintiff's lack of knowledge about Berg Street's traffic light and lane configuration did not affect the outcome.
Remedies
- Defendant is held liable to compensate plaintiff for 100% of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
- Defendant is to pay the costs.
Legal Principles
- The court must determine which version of events is more probable when faced with conflicting testimonies. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving their version is true and the defendant's is false (National Employers General Insurance Co Ltd v Jagers).
- The court applies the balance of probabilities standard to assess credibility and reliability of witnesses. If probabilities are evenly balanced, the plaintiff must still convince the court their evidence is true (Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd & Another v Martell et Cie & Others).
Precedent Name
- Nogude v Union and South Africa Insurance Co. Ltd
- Rondalia Assurance Corporation of S.A. Ltd v Gonya
- WH Human v RAF
- National Employers General Insurance Co Ltd v Jagers
- Moloto v RAF
- Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd v Martell et Cie
- Santam Bpk v Biddulph
Cited Statute
Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956
Judge Name
N. GUTTA
Passage Text
- [21] Plaintiff was in my view a good witness who did not contradict his evidence in cross examination... I am of the view that he is a credible witness whose version of events was corroborated by his passenger Mr Mphahlele.
- [34] The manner in which plaintiff drove his vehicle accorded with the standard as envisaged in the case of Nogude supra... I am of the view that plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the insured driver was negligent.
- [25.4]... the probabilities are that the insured driver did not apply his brakes, he was driving at a high speed and failed to keep a proper lookout... [26]... the insured driver has an interest in the outcome of this matter as he lodged a claim with the RAF...