Barnett v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (21189/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 553 (1 December 2025)

Case Note

Jacob Colin Barnett v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
Case No.: 21189/2019
Neutral citation: Jacob Colin Barnett (Case no 21189/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC (01-12-2025)
Date: 01 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications regarding the duty of care owed to passengers utilizing public transport services in South Africa. The judgment underscores the legal expectation for transport operators, such as the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), to ensure the safety and security of their passengers through adequate measures. This case is particularly significant in the context of increasing violence on public transport systems and the necessity of addressing systemic failures that place commuters at risk. The ruling provides guidance on the extent of liability a transport agency may hold when incidents of crime occur in transit and sets a precedent for future claims against such agencies for negligence.

Cases Cited

• Railway Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail (CCT56/03) [2004] ZACC 20; 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC)
• Mashongwa v PRASA 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC)
• Mkhize v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa 2025 JDR 2863 (WCC)

Legislation Cited

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this matter, the plaintiff, a 72-year-old retiree, pursued a delictual claim against the defendant for damages resulting from a violent incident that took place while he and his wife were passengers on a train operated by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to uphold its duty of care by providing inadequate security, resulting in harassment and a physical assault by unknown assailants. The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant's negligence was evident in its lack of security measures that could have prevented the incident.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed by the court included: 1. Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as a passenger. 2. If the defendant breached this duty by failing to provide adequate security measures on the train. 3. The relationship between the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant's negligence.

Held

The court held that the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa was liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to its negligence in ensuring adequate security for passengers on its trains. The court found the plaintiff's account credible and consistent, and it rejected the defendant's defense of mere denial without supporting evidence. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's damages and costs.

THE FACTS

The plaintiff, Jacob Colin Barnett, initiated legal proceedings against the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa after experiencing a traumatic incident while traveling on one of their trains from Cape Town to Retreat Station. On the date in question, while the train was en route, three unknown males and a woman boarded at Hazeldene Station and subsequently harassed the plaintiff and his wife. This harassment escalated to an attempted robbery, during which the plaintiff was injured when one of the assailants brandished a knife, and another assailant stole the plaintiff's wife's handbag. After the assailants exited the train at Crawford Station, a passerby on the platform threw a brick into the moving train, hitting the plaintiff in the face.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's failure to provide adequate security contributed directly to the incident. He was left traumatized, sustaining physical and emotional injuries that necessitated medical treatment. The plaintiff claimed a substantial amount for damages related to past and future medical expenses, as well as general damages for pain and suffering.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions for the court were whether the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff and if it breached that duty by failing to provide reasonable safety measures on its trains. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a direct result of this breach and if the defendant's actions, or lack thereof, constituted negligence in the context of public transport safety.

ANALYSIS

The court carefully analyzed the evidence presented by the plaintiff, acknowledging his credibility despite some discrepancies in his account and documentation. The plaintiff's testimony was consistent with the psychological assessment, emphasizing his emotional and physical distress as a direct consequence of the incident. The court also highlighted the significance of the defendant's failure to provide security measures, such as security personnel, surveillance systems, and ticket inspections.

The judgment pointedly noted the absence of any witnesses or evidence from the defendant, which resulted in a lack of counter-arguments to the plaintiff's claims. The court considered the public duty of care imposed on transport operators under the Constitutional mandate to protect all citizens, particularly vulnerable passengers reliant on public transport systems. The court concluded that the defendant's failure to act adequately in safeguarding passengers demonstrated a breach of this duty.

REMEDY

The High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the defendant was liable for the damages claimed. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff for his proven or agreed damages and the costs of the proceedings, including counsel's fees at Scale B. The matter of quantum was adjourned sine die, allowing the plaintiff to later pursue the specifics of the damages owed.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The ruling established several key legal principles, including the following:

1. Duty of Care: Transport operators are legally obliged to ensure the safety of their passengers, particularly in light of known risks associated with public transport.

2. Breach of Duty: A failure to provide reasonable security measures constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed to passengers.

3. Credibility of Witnesses: The court gives significant weight to the credibility and consistency of the witnesses’ testimonies, even in the absence of corroborating evidence from the defendant.

4. Consequential Damages: Emotional and psychological harm resulting from incidents on public transport are valid claims for damages, reinforcing the recognition of the mental health impacts associated with violent crimes.