Booysen v Road Accident Fund (6297/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 576 (10 December 2025)

Case Note

Booysen v The Road Accident Fund (Case No: 6297/2020)
High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
Date Delivered: 10 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications relating to the assessment of liability and negligence in motor vehicle accidents under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. It deals specifically with the legal standards applicable when evaluating whether a claimant’s injuries were directly caused by the negligent conduct of a driver of an insured vehicle. The findings contribute to the body of jurisprudence surrounding delictual claims, particularly in understanding the role of causation and negligence. Furthermore, the court's guidance on the appropriate assessment of cost scales in civil litigation adds to its significance.

Cases Cited

1. Kruger v Coetzee 1966 (2) SA 428 (A)
2. National Employers General Insurance Co. Ltd v Jaggers 1984 (4) SA 437 (E)
3. Herschel v Mrupe 1954 (3) SA 464 (A)
4. Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martel et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA)
5. Wells and Another v Shield Insurance Co. Ltd and Others 1965 (2) SA 865 (C)
6. Prins v RAF (21261/08) [2013] ZAGPJHC 106
7. Groenewald C v RAF (74920/2014) [2017] 879
8. Mbatha v RAF 2017 (1) SA 442 (GJ)
9. Maguru v RAF 2020 (3) SA 225 (LT)
10. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Ltd v Koch 1963 (4) SA 147 (A)

Legislation Cited

• Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rule 33(4)
• Uniform Rule 67A

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court of South Africa adjudicated the case of Booysen v The Road Accident Fund involving a civil trial where the Plaintiff claimed damages for an eye injury sustained during a vehicular incident. The primary focus was to establish whether the injury was a direct consequence of the negligent driving of an insured driver, with the court ultimately finding the Defendant liable for the Plaintiff's damages. Costs were awarded in favor of the Plaintiff, but the question of the appropriate scale of those costs was to be determined later when quantum was assessed.

Key Issues

The court was required to determine several key issues: - Whether the Plaintiff's eye injury was sustained as a result of the incident involving the insured vehicle. - Whether the driver, Ricardo, acted negligently in the manner that led to the injury. - The proper allocation of costs and the timing of the determination of the costs scale in light of the ongoing nature of the trial.

Held

The court held that the Plaintiff proved her case on the merits, establishing a causal link between her eye injury and the negligent driving of the insured vehicle. Judgment was granted in favor of the Plaintiff, with costs awarded while postponing the determination of the exact scale of costs until after the quantum of damages has been assessed.

THE FACTS

The Plaintiff, Shereen Davine Booysen, was involved in an incident on 28 December 2018 while a passenger in an uncovered truck driven by Ricardo, who was returning farmworkers from work. It was alleged that during the trip, the vehicle struck branches overhanging the roadway leading to the Plaintiff sustaining an eye injury from a thorn. Post-incident, Booysen experienced significant vision impairment which necessitated medical treatment, including operations at hospitals.

The Defendant, representing the Road Accident Fund, contested the claims, suggesting alternative scenarios for the injury, including the possibility of her injury resulting from environmental factors rather than vehicle-related incidents, leading to a dispute over liability.

THE ISSUES

The legal questions before the court primarily centered on causation: 1. Was there sufficient evidence linking the incident in the truck with the Plaintiff’s injuries? 2. Did Ricardo, the driver, act with negligence by failing to adequately control the vehicle in a manner to prevent injury? 3. What would be the appropriate scale of costs to apply given the separated issues of liability and quantum?

ANALYSIS

The court meticulously examined the sufficiency of evidence presented from both Plaintiff and Defendant. The Plaintiff’s account was considered credible, and no substantial contradictions were found within her testimony. In contrast, evidence from Ricardo revealed attempts to mislead regarding the driver's awareness of hazardous conditions posed by overhanging branches. The court highlighted the discrepancy in the stories and positioned the Plaintiff’s account as consistent and reliable compared to Ricardo’s less credible defense.

In arriving at its conclusion, the court employed established legal principles surrounding negligence and causation. The court acknowledged that even a small percentage of negligence attributed to the driver could obligate the RAF to assume full liability for the claimed damages. Their analysis established that Ricardo’s actions fell short of those expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances, thus confirming the Defendant’s liability under section 17(1) of the RAF Act for the Plaintiff's injury.

REMEDY

In conclusion, the court ordered that: 1. The Plaintiff's claim succeeds on merits, with the Defendant liable for her injuries. 2. Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff, although the determination of the appropriate scale of those costs was deferred until the quantum was decided. 3. The issue of quantum is to be expedited for trial, ensuring the Plaintiff's claim for damages continues to be addressed in a timely manner.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case reinforces critical legal principles in South African delict law, particularly in contexts involving vehicle accidents and the liability of drivers under the Road Accident Fund. Key principles include: - Negligence must be proven on a balance of probabilities, with a clear causal link established between the negligent conduct and resultant injury. - The existence of a "reasonable person" standard guides evaluations of driver conduct in causing injury. - Proper management of costs is essential, with courts advised to defer the determination of costs until the entirety of the case has been resolved, preventing grave complications in taxation and ensuring appropriate compensation mechanisms for successful litigants.