About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 284
|
|
Chewe v Road Accident Fund (22642/OS) [2010] ZAGPPHC 284 (30 April 2010)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE NORTH
GAIUTENG HIGH COURT PRETORIA
Case
No: 22642/OS
DATE:
30 APRIL 2010
In the matter
between:
TEM
CHEWE
…...................................................
Plaintiff
Vs
THE ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
................
Respondent
JUDGEMENT
SAPIRE. A J:
The Plaintiff sues
both in her personal capacity and as mother and guardian of her four
minor children The Defendant is the Road
Accident Fund Plaintiffs
claim arises out of the death of the Plaintiff s husband and father
of the minor children who died in
a road accident which took place on
the 17th of May 2003 on the Louis Trichardt Polokwane road The
deceased was travelling as a
passenger in a motor vehicle with
registration numbers D……… which collided with a
motor vehicle with registration
numbers B………
then and there driven by one Kgomoesoana The Plaintiff alleges that
the accident was caused by
the negligence of the driver of the
vehicle B………
When the matter was
called for trial the parties had agreed 10 separate the issues of
negligence from the issue of the quantum of
damages. I was asked to
determine only the question of negligence
The Plaintif called
as a witness the driver of the car in which the deceased was
travelling He is one James Ramahuma He described
that when it was
already dark at about 7 30 in the evening he was driving along the
main road from Polokwane to Louis Trichardt
intending to go to Elim.
Which requires a right turn from the main road at a T junction.
He described how he
approached a point in the road where there is a turn off to the right
to the road leading to Elim There he stopped
before proceeding to
make his turn He says he saw the lights of a motorcar on the far side
of the road which he had to traverse
in making his right turn and
assumed that the car was stationary He proceeded to make his turn but
a collision took place at the
entrance to the Elim road. It appears
that the vehicle which was seen by the driver. James, was not
stationary.
The driver of the
insured vehicle was called by the Defendant who gave a different
version of what happened
He said that he was
travelling in the opposite direction to the vehicle in which the
deceased was a passenger and he observed the
lights of a vehicle
apparently wishing to turn right to enter the Elim road
Ahead of him were
two motor vehicles which passed the T-junction formed by the main
road and the Elim road these two vehicles passed
in safety and he had
no indication that the vehicle which intended to turn right would
make its move so as to endanger him He therefore
proceeded but at the
intersection his vehicle was struck by that of the vehicle in which
the deceased was a passenger He was insistent
that he had no reason
to believe that the vehicle would act irregularly or that there was
any danger in him continuing his journey
following the two vehicles
which had passed the intersection
On the evidence
there is nothing to contradict this. As far as the other vehicle is
concerned it is clear that the driver made a
right turn and proceeded
onto die road in the face of oncoming traffic
It is clear that in
so doing he was negligent I must reject his evidence that he thought
that the oncoming vehicle was stationary
on the distal side of the
road The evidence of the insured driver is in this respect more
cogent in contradicting the evidence
of the driver of the vehicle in
which the deceased was struck
I therefore found
that the accident was caused by the sole negligence of the driver of
vehicle D…….
I make no order as
to costs This question will have to be decided when the issue of
damages is determined by the parties
SW SAP I RE
ACTING JUDGE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
Attorneys for I
lie Plaintiff: Davidson Attorneys
c.'o gcvser van
Rooven Attorneys
383 Karenden
Street
ARCADIA, PRETORIA
Tel: 012-344 1445
Ref: (Mr
Geyser'SS Kl A1 0001)
Plaintiff's
Counsel: Ads G Diamond
Attorney’s
for the Respondent: Djason Inc
134 Muckleneuk
Street Nieuw MucMeneuk PRETORIA Tel: 012-452 3594 Ref: L Swari/vb 'DR
2451
Respondent's
Counsel: Adv ( M Ripp