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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 387
|
|
Marupeng v Road Accident Fund (15181/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 387 (28 March 2017)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
SOUTH DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 15181/2012
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST OTHER JUDGES: NO
DATE:
28/3/2017
In
the matter between:
TSHEDIMO
LUDWICK
MARUPENG PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
Heard:
12 October 2016
Delivered:
28 March 2017
JUDGMENT
Molahlehi
J
Introduction
[1]
This is an action proceedings in terms of which the plaintiff claims
damages arising from the accident which took place on the
2 May 2010
between his car, a Peugeot with the registration number: [N...] and
the red Toyota, registration number [T...].
[2]
The matter concerns the merit only, the parties having agreed and it
being so ordered that the issue of quantum would be dealt
with later
depending the outcome these proceedings.
[3]
The plaintiff claims damages arising from the body injuries he
suffered as result of the accident allegedly caused by the negligent
driving of the insured driver.
[4]
The defendant on the other hand disputed the allegation and claims
that the plaintiff is the sole cause of the accident. In
the
alternative the defendant contends that the plaintiffs negligent
driving of his motor car contributed to the accident.
[5]
The plaintiff testified on his behalf and was the only witness in
that regard.
In
brief his testimony is that on the day of the accident he drove with
his friend to a petrol garage to draw money from the auto
bank
machine. He stopped at same point next to the palisade fence and was
intending to take a walk across to the garage. His friend
advised him
that the road was full of mud. They then decided to drive towards the
high way apparently in order to approach the
garage from a different
direction.
[6]
As they were driving on the speed not exceeding 60km per hour
there suddenly came a red Toyota driven by the insured driver. The
plaintiff testify that prior to the impact all what he heard was his
friend saying "what is this person is doing."
[7]
The plaintiff lost consciousness due to the injuries he
suffered is a result of the accident. He was hospitalised for three
months.
His friend who was a passenger in the car passed away.
[8]
The plaintiff denied during cross examination that he was
charged with culpable homicide arising from the accident. He,
however,
conceded that the police did take a statement from him after
the accident. He also testified that at the time of making the
statement
to the police he was still not well, and could not remember
most of what happened on the day in question. He began to regain his
memory towards the late 2011, beginning of 2012.
[9]
It was put to him that he was the cause of the accident in
that he bumped on a taxi Quntum Toyota first and therefore the red
Toyota.
[10]
The case of the defendant is based on the testimony of the
accident reconstruction expert who was the only witness to testify
for
the defendant. Its case is based on the inference mainly drawn
from the photos taken by the police which state that the accident
occurred on the lane on which the Toyota was travelling in.
[11]
Mr. Grobbler, the defendant's expert witness, testified based on the
report he compiled on the 25 August 2013. His report is
based on the
documents which were submitted to him. He was not present at the time
the accident occurred. He only visited the scene
of the accident two
years after the accident. He went there alone. In the summary of his
report he state the following:
"a)
The Quantum was travelling towards Thembisa (northbound) and
the red Toyota was travelling
some distance behind it in the same
direction.
b)
The Peugeot was travelling towards Kempton Park (southbound)
drifted/moved/swerved into the lane
of the Quantum and collided with
its (the Quantum's) right rear side.
c)
The Peugeot continued further into this lane and collided with the
right front to right offset
front impact with the with the red
Toyota, in the lane of travel of the red Toyota. The red Toyota was
impacted off the road on
its correct side as a result of tis
collision of the road to rest in its correct lane.
d)
Sometime after the vehicles had come to rest, the white Toyota,
travelling towards Kempton Park,
collided into the right side of the
Peugeot where it had come to rest."
[12]
The conclusion to drawn from the above is that Mr Grobbler's version
has no factual basis as what he said I is not supported
by admissible
evidence. The hearsay evidence he relied in drawing his report was
not corroborated by any other reliable evidence.
[13]
In light of the above I am of the opinion that the version of the
defendant stands to be rejected. The version of the plaintiff
on the
other hand was clear and consistent. I see no reason why such version
should not be accepted being true.
[14
]The probabilities accordingly favours the finding that the insured
driver was the cause of the accident. As concerning the
issue of
contributory negligence the defendant presented no evidence in that
regard. I see no reason in the circumstances why costs
should not
follow the results.
Order
[15]
In the premises the following order is made:
15.1 The
judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff
15.2 The
matter is postponed sine die for the determination of the quantum.
15.3 The
defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff.
_________________
E
Molahlehi
Judge
of the South Gauteng
High
Court
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:
Phukubye Attorneys
RESPONDENT:
Tsebane Molaba Inc