About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 163
|
|
Vitash Trucking CC and Another v Vervoer and Others (1707/2016) [2024] ZAFSHC 163 (16 May 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE D1VISION. BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable: YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case
no
:
1707/2016
In
the matter between:
VITASH
TRUCKING CC
First
Plaintiff
JCB
TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD
Second
Plaintiff
t/a
C J PARTNERS
and
ROOS
VERVOER
First
Defendant
BIKINYANA
DLAMINI
Second
Defendant
ROOIKUIL
BELEGGINGS TRUST
Th
i
rd
Defendant
CORAM:
P R CRONJE, AJ
HEARD
ON:
29
-
30 AUGUST 2023,
12
-
13 DECEMBER
2023
DELIVERED
ON:
16 MAY 2024
JUDGMENT
ON
MERITS
[1]
After hearing the
evidence of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants brought an application for
absolution from the instance
.
I issued a
written
judgement
and dismissed that
application with costs
.
There was,
however one correction to be made to that judgment.
I recorded that the
left indicator of the Defendants
'
vehicle
'
rear trailer
(I refer to the combination of the
Hino truck-tractor
and
two
trailers as
"the
Hino")
was switched on whilst the evidence was that the right
indicator
of the rear
trailer was on
.
[2]
After completion of
all
the
evidence,
the
parties
requested
that
the matter be postponed to the pre-trial roll in 2024 as they wished
for a transcription of the record to be made and thereafter
filing of
heads of argument. The Plaintiffs
'
heads of
argument was filed on 8 March 2024 and that of the Defendants
on 25 March 2024.
This explains
the
reason
for
the delay
in
finalisation
of the judgment
[3]
The test at
absolution stage differs from the
test
at the end of
the case, which
is
the balance of
probabilities
.
Plaintiffs'
case
[4]
It
·
is
common cause that a motor vehicle accident
took
-place on 22
May 2014 on the N1 highway near Ventersburg.
It is alleged that at
time
of
the
accident,
the Second Plaintiff (herein referred to as JCB),
leased
an Argosy
truck-tractor and two top trailers (herein
referred
to
as
the
Argosy) from
the First Plaintiff (herein referred to as Vitash) and accordingly
carried the risk of
loss
and damage as
a
bona fide
possessor
.
It
is
pleaded that JCS
insured
the vehicles
with Sant-am and that the action was
instituted
on the basis
of subrogation.
[5]
Vitash’s
locus
standi
is
challenged, as is the allegation that JCS bore a risk
.
The parties
agreed that only
the
merits have to
be adjudicated
.
The Plaintiffs
called two witnesses.
Evidence
of Mrs Charmaine Lamprecht
[6]
Mrs Charmaine
Lamprecht is employed by JCS which transports goods for clients by
employing subcontractors of which Vitash was one
,
and also uses
its own staff
.
A Transport
Suppliers Agreement was concluded between the JCS and Vitash - only
signed by Vitash - on 22 May 2014.
The service to be
rendered is the transportation of goods under sub-contract by the
carrier (Vitash).
Clause
7
.
1
provides that Vitash shall be liable to
i
ndemnify
JCS against all liability of any natu
r
e
whatsoeve
r
,
howsoever arising directly or
i
ndirectly
from handling of the goods and Vitash
'
s
maximum liab
i
l
i
ty
to JCS shall be
R1
million
,
which liability shall
be underwritten by an insurance policy
.
[7]
Clause 9
.
1
provides that Vitash will effect in
i
ts
own name policies of insurance to the satisfaction of JCS
,
and will
produce same on demand
.
Should Vitash fail to
do so
,
JCS
may effect insurance and Vitash will be liable to pay JCB the costs
of so doing.
[8]
Vitash prov
i
ded
their own trucks and drivers and used JCB's trailers
.
JCS pays the
premiums on the insurance contracts to prevent them from lapsing
.
Policy Endorsement
#45 shows that the Santam was the insurer and that the vehicles were
insured by JCS, insured from 1 May 2014
to 31 May 2014
,
with the
effective date 9 May 2014
,
thereafter
renewing monthly.
The
Argosy (item 24 in the Schedule) was insured for R1 220 000
.
00
.
Items 75 and
76 in the Schedule for JCS's own vehicles, show that the two trailers
are insured to the sum of R150 000
.
00
respectively
.
The policy in
respect of the trailers shows that the inception date of the policy
was 1 September 2013
,
effective from
1 Feb
r
uary
2014 until 28 February 2014 and renewing monthly thereafter
.
[9]
The collision was
reported and Santam pa
i
d
the monies into JCS
'
s
account
,
whereupon
i
t
indemnified Vitash
.
Mrs Lamprecht
conceded that JCS does not have a direct interest in the patrimonial
value of the Argosy and that JCB did not suffer
any damages in
respect of the Argosy
.
Although Mrs
Lamprecht stated that there are separate insurance policies for each
subcontractor
,
one should
keep in mind that this is a subrogation claim where Santam steps into
the shoes of insureds
.
I am satisfied
that the policy and schedules relied upon by the Plaintiffs
clothes Santam,
w
i
th
locus
standi
and
that cover existed for
the
period in which the
accident
took place
.
[10]
The certificate of
registration in respect of the Argosy
shows that
Mercedes Benz
Financial Services was the titleholder and Vitash the owner
.
Evidence
of Mr Barry Grobbelaar
[11]
He was called as an
expert. A camera was mounted in the grill (grill-cam) of the Argosy.
The video recording
does
not depict real time.
The
Joint Minutes prepared between him and Mrs Badenhorst on 29 August
2023, record that they accept that the accident took place
at an
intersection that changed substantially since the accident. The
Argosy collided with its right front part with the left rear
part
of the Hino's
last
trailer.
There was
unrestricted visibility for
-
the
driver of the Argosy of approximately
500 metres and the
driver of the Hino truck would have been able to see behind -his
vehicle for the same distance as the road is
straight and relatively
flat.
[12]
The Argosy was traveling at approximately 91 km/h before braking
.
The speed
limit for the Argosy on that road was 80 km/h.
It could not be
established from the video whether the Hino truck was initially
stationery or moving slowly in the emergency lane
prior to the
accident.
[13]
The Argosy was
approximately 86 to 100 metres from the Hino when the Hino started
turning to the right from the emergency lane,
approximately
4 seconds before the
accident.
There
was insufficient time for the Hino to complete his turning manoeuvre
.
The indicator on the
right of the rear trailer of the Hino is visible on the video just
prior to the Argosy colliding with the trailer.
Maximum breaking
effort always
poses
a
danger that
a truck may
jackknife
.
If the
Argosy truck applied
maximum braking effort after seeing the Hino truck starting to turn,
he would probably have been able, or almost
have been able to bring
his vehicle to a stop prior to the accident, in a non-jackknife
scenario
.
The
Hino blocked the whole width of the road shortly
pr
i
or
to the collision. The rear part of
the
rear trailer was
still
in
the
emergency
lane moments prior to the collision
.
[14]
He is of the opinion
that
it
was not necessary
for
the Hine driver
.to
execute a right
turn
manoeuvre
from
the
emergency
lane,
as
there
was
more
than sufficient space
to have done so from his lane of travel
[15]
It appears that the
Argosy, before the accident, may have passed over the centre line and
it could be as a result of the Hino being
in the emergency
lane. It can be seen
on the video that the Argosy thereafter suddenly moved to his left
.
If the Argosy swerved
to the right
it
would have hit
the Hino truck and if swerve
-
d1o
the left it would have had a better -chance of avoiding the Hino.
It would have however
caused the Argosy to jackknife. There were also pedestrians on the
left side of the road.
[16]
When put to him that
the driver of the Hino will testify that he indicated that he would
turn to his right from the emergency
lane
-
and
was then hit from behind, Mr Grobbelaar stated that the manoeuvre was
not necessary for an optimal turn to the right.
Defendants'
case
Evidence
of Mr Bikayana Johannes Diamini
[17]
He was the
driver of the Hino
with
-
two
trailers on the date of
the
accident. The first trailer was 6 and the second 12 metres long - a
combination
of
18 metres excluding the truck-tractor. He has driven trucks since
2009. He was on his way from Winburg to Ventersburg.
He had to turn to his
right into a farm road to load Soya and noticed that the turnoff
would be difficult to negotiate. He had to
enter the emergency
lane to make the tum.
Before he turned he
observed a vehicle approaching
him from behind but
it-was still far
-
away
.
He switched
his right indicator light on and waited for approaching vehicles from
his front. He again observed Argosy but it was
still far away. The
Argosy was at that stage in the middle of the road
.
He could not tell how
fast the Argosy was approaching but it was a
"heavy''
vehicle
.
He later
ventured to state that the Argosy was driving fast and if it did not,
it would not have collided with his truck
.
He had to take a
wider turn as the rear trailer would have collided with a pole at the
entry point of the road into which he intended
to turn
.
After the approaching
vehicles passed
,
he turned to
his right.
He
turned slow as his vehicle was heavy
.
[18]
In cross-examination he denied that when he turned
,
it created an
obstruction over the road
.
According to him
,
veh
i
cles
from behind should have stopped as they knew that he was turning
.
He could not give an
estimation of the distance between him and the Argosy but estimated
it to have been 10 me
t
res
(10 steps in the
Court).
The Argosy was not stopping at 1hat stage. He does not know whether
the Argosy had preference in the lane that it was travelling
.
He had the
right to turn and the Argosy should have stopped until he executed
the turning manoeuvre
.
He conceded that
there was no way that the Argosy could
have
passed
his
vehicle
and
should
have
stopped
as
he
had
his
-
indicator
light on and was already turning.
He speculated that
the Argosy’
s
driver may have been
on his phone or drowsy
.
He denied that he
already passed the turn-off
.
He conceded that the
Argosy would have jack-knifed if
i
t
swerved fast to avoid an accident.
Evidence
of Mrs Wilna Badenhorst
[19]
She prepared an-expert report and was a co-author of the Joint
Minutes
.
The
minutes states that the
Court
has to determine whether
:
1he
Argosy
'
s
driver could have been expected to apply maximum braking power under
the circumstances; whether the Hino blocked the whole width
of the
road shortly prior to the collision
;
and whether
the Argosy should have taken any action,
such as slowing down
and/or moving to the right upon seeing the Hino in the emergency
lane
.
[20]
She is of the opinion that it is not uncommon for drivers to widen
the
i
r
turning circle
.
[21]
At the stage when the front portion of the Hino appeared to be closer
to the centre
line
,
the Argosy
was
still
tr.avelling.at
app
r
oximately
91.58
km/h
.
At
the point where the
Hino crossed the centre
l
ine
of the road
,
the Argosy was
travelling at approximately
88 km/h.
The
rear portion of the second trailer was still in the emergency
lane
.
The Argosy
reduced speed to 79 km/h when the Hino was in an advanced turning
stage
.
Just
before impact
,
the Argosy was
traveling at approximately
74
km/h
.
According to
legislation, the speed limit for these types of trucks is 80 km/h.
The reaction time for
a driver would be approximately 1.6 to 2 seconds
.
The grill-cam
at a stage showed that the Argosy moved to his right and if the
Argosy applied maximum braking power
,
it ran the
risk of jack
-
knifing
.
Mrs Badenhorst
stated that the Hino
driver could technically have stayed in his lane of travel and
performed the tum from there but it is not uncommon
for drivers to go
to the left in order to perform a turning manoeuvre to the right.
[22]
The Argosy may have
collided with the Hino whether it was travelling 80
,
72 or 50 km/h.
Prior to the Hino
driver committing to turn
,
an accident
would not have occurred if he did not turn.
[23]
On my question whether it appears on the video that the rear trailer
may be in the midline of the gravel
road to the right
,
she stated
that it would be a bit far from the pole.
Factual
findings
[24]
In respect of
locus
standi,
the
insurable interest and subrogation
,
I am satisfied
that the Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to discharge the
onus resting on them
.
[25]
The driver of the
Argosy did not testify. Explanations were proffered why he did not
come even though subpoenaed.
[26]
The only real
evidence of the accident that the Plaintiffs presented was the video,
which was admitted by agreement. This evidence
was considered by both
experts and they agreed on the majority of their observations made
from the video
.
Due to the
changes to the
road
at the point of impact
,
the only
evidence
of
how the area looked like were satellite images taken by Google
Earth
.
[27]
The evidence that the
Hino was stationary in the emergency lane whist the Argosy approached
is common cause. I accept that the right
indicator of the Hino was at
some stage on to indicate that it intended to make a manoeuvre to the
right. I specifically refer
to a
manoeuvre and not a
turn. Whether a vehicle from behind would have deduced or accepted
that the vehicle intended to cross over the
road to the other side is
debatable.
[28]
I accept that both
vehicles were
"heavy
vehicles
"
and accept
that maximum braking power would on probabilities have caused the
Argosy to jackknife
.
This is common
cause on the evidence of the experts and Mr Dlamini. There was no
space for the Argosy to pass the Hino to the right
after it made the
turn to the right. There were pedestrians visible to the left of the
rear trailer.
[29]
Did "the speed
of the Argosy play a role causing the accident? It is common cause
that the Argosy exceeded the maximum speed
prescribed for a vehicle
of that class
.
My
understanding of the experts' opinions is however that the speed
per
se
would
not have made a difference.
[30]
Estimations of distances are notoriously difficult. Mr Dlamini
himself
,
however, gave
estimations
of
how far the Argosy was behind him when he commenced his turn -
approximately 10 metres
.
Notwithstanding,
he placed a burden on the Argosy driver to stop to give him time to
complete the turn
.
Mr Dlamini
testified that it would have been best for him and the Argosy driver
to have been cautious
.
[31]
Reference to a U-turn
was made by Mr Dlamini. Whether Mr Dlamini intended to make a U-turn
is neither here nor there. He commenced
a turn which could either
have been for a U-turn or turning into the road to his right. The
commencement of the manoeuvre is the
same
.
Legal
principles
[32]
Mr
Van
Rensburg
refers
to
AA
Mutual
Insurance
Association
v
Nomeka
,
[1]
where
the Court held
:
"
In
a long line of cases both in the Provincial Divisions, as
well
as in
this Division
,
it
is
clearly stated that to tum across the line of oncoming or following
traffic
is
an
inherently
dangerous
manoeuvre and that there
is
a stringent
duty upon
a
driver
who intends executing such a manoeuvre to do so by properly
satisfying himself that
it
is
safe
,
and
choosing the opportune moment to do
so
."
[33]
In
Madzunve
and another v RAF
[2]
reference
is
made to
Milton
v Vacuum Oil
Co
of
SA
Ltd
[3]
,
which
dealt with traffic in opposite directions. A person is entitled to
assume that those who are travelling
will
continue
on
their
course
and that they will not suddenly and inopportunely
turn
across the line of traffic. A person may only assume that, until
he
is shown a
clear
intention
to
the contrary. When a
clear
and undoubted warning
is
given
,
there
is no longer any room for the assumption that the
other
person
will continue in his former course. Applied to the instant matter
,
I
cannot find that Mr Dlamini gave an undoubted warning that he intends
to cross over the whole of the road and not merely
an
intention to move to the right.
[34]
In
Bohlolo
v Road Accident Fund
[4]
the
Court made refence to S v Olivier where it was held
:
"[29]
...
But not
so
,
I think
,
in the
case
of
a
driver
who is travelling along a national road on which
it
is
a
common
experience
to
be overtaken
at
high
speed by
other
vehicles
.
Such
a
driver
would
,
I
think
,
if he
were reasonably diligent
,
before
or at the time of giving
a
signal of his
intention to tum right, make
a
special
point of ascertaining
,
with
the aid of his rearview mirror
,
or
otherwise
,
whether
there were any vehicles coming on behind him
.
And,
a
fortiori
,
he
would also keep
a
keen look
out ahead for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction and
into whose line of travel the proposed right tum would
necessarily
take him
.
If
the route ahead were entirely free of danger but the vehicle were to
be seen by him approaching from behind it's not great distance
but it
speed, he would in my opinion be taking an unjustifiable risk if.
without paying any further attention to the movements
of that
vehicle, he were simply to execute his right-hand tum on the blithe
assumption
that
the driver thereof had seen and understood his signal and would heed
it
.”
[my
emphasis]".
[own
emphasis]
[35]
·
in
'Pienaar
v Road Accident Fund
[5]
it
was
·
held:
"
[60)
...
It
is
not
sufficient
,
however,
that the
-
driver
of the vehicle which is
-
about
to tum
-
signals
his intention to do so, even if the signal
-
is
given
-
in
good time
.
His
further obligation
.
is
to refrain from
making
the tum until an opportune time.
An
opportune
time in
that
context is
a time when the motorist who wishes to tum can carry out his
intention without endangering or even materially impeding
the
progress of any other person or
vehicle
lawfully on the road
.
It
is the duty of the driver who wishes to make the tum to satisfy
himself by full and careful personal observation that the time
is
opportune in the sense indicated above
.”
[own emphasis]
[36]
The
prima
facie
view
that usually applies in situations where a vehicle collides from the
back with a vehicle in front of it, and where it is then
usually said
that the driver of the back vehicle is negligent,
[6]
can
I my view not apply in these circumstances.
[37]
Ms Bronkhorst argues
that
Mr Grobbelaar could
not exclude the
possibility that the Hino utilized the
left
lane
in order to secure a
right-hand manoeuvre for the turn
.
Mr
Grobbelaar
also
conceded
that
the video
limits
the
detail
and the
extent to which one
can examine
the
footage
and give
an
opinion
thereon
.
The
Argosy exceeded
·
the
maximum
-
permissible
speed and Mr
-
Grobbelaar
confirmed
that
the
higher
the mass
of the
vehicle the
more energy
is
needed to be
dissipated
to
stop the
vehicle engaging
in
a
collision
or
bring
it
to a stop by
braking
.
She
argues
that
Mr
Grobbelaar
conceded
that
the
Hino
could make
use
of
a
wider
turning
manoeuvre
where
the
entrance
is
too
small
but he
also
stated that the
video
shows that there
is
plenty
of room
.
He
did
not
need
-
to
visit to the scene to
be able to make that
-
conclusion.
[38]
with reference to the
Plaintiffs not presenting the evidence of the driver of the Argosy
,
she refers to
Wigmore
on Evidence
:
Third Edition
,
Volume 2
,
para
185 at 162,
where it is stated
:
"
The
failure to bring before the Tribunal some
...
witness
,
when
either the party himself or his opponent claims that the facts would
thereby be elucidated
,
serves
to indicate as the most natural inference, that the party fears to do
so, and this fear is some evidence that the
.
.
.
witness
if brought
,
would
have exposed facts unfavourable
to
the party
.
Late
,
the
inference
...
is
,
of
course
,
that
the tenure of the specific unproduced evidence would be contrary to
the parties
'
case
or at least would not support it.
"
[7]
[39]
Whilst
I
Agree
with
these principles,
I
am satisfied
that
the Plaintiffs
have
shown to what extent they went
-
to
secure
the
presence
of
the
driver
at
Court
.
I
cannot
under
these circumstances
·
make
an
adverse
finding against 1he Plaintiffs where they intended to call the driver
and made effort to secure his attendance. A Court
is called upon to
consider the evidence holistically.
[8]
In
this case, and in respect of the accident, the video evidence, the
experts and Mr Dlamini's evidence are considered.
[40]
She argues that the Argosy
drove
at an excessive speed
and
increased speed notwithstanding the Hino being visible
.
"Mr
Grobbelaar
did
not
attend
the
scene nor obtained
the version of the Argosy's driver
.
According to her
,
the Court has
to
determine
what was visible to
the
Argosy
driver,
what was he doing
prior to the
collision, would the Hino have utilized the emergency lane to execute
the turning manoeuvre and why maximum braking
capacity was not
applied.
She
argues that there is no version as to these questions.
[41]
I
accept that a motorist that uses the emergency lane does not
necessarily act unlawfully.
It
is also trite that a car following another should not travel either
too closely behind or at such a speed that he is unable to
pull
up or swerve in the event of sudden stoppage or
-
movement
on the part of the driver in front.
[9]
[42]
She
submits that the Argosy driver was either travelling too fast
,
or
did not keep a proper lookout, and only realized that the truck was
travelling slower than he was when it was too late to avoid
the
accident.
[10]
In
Ditsela
v Road Accident Fund,
however,
the principles were applied to a truck travelling slower than
-
the
one following and not a truck that stood stationary and not one
that
-
crossed
over
-
all
the lanes of travel.
[43]
I am of the view that there is no room for applying the principles
applicable to mutually destructive versions.
The video material
depicts the circumstances prior
to
the
accident
occurring
.
Mr
Dlamini
executed
a
turn
which
was
inherently dangerous
.
His
explanation for why
he
did
.
so
and at what time is not in dispute
.
The
question is at what time did he
observe
-
the
Argosy and whether it was safe to make the turn at that time? The
principles in
National
Employer's General Insurance v
Jagers
[11]
do
not
find
application
.
[44]
She submits that the witnesses for the Defendants were credible and
that the testimony
was
supported by the video evidence
,
all of which
can be accepted by the Court
.
I cannot make
an adverse finding about the credibility of any of the witnesses
.
The experts
disagree
·
on
a singular issue -
whether
it was necessary for
Mr
Dlamini to make the wider turn or not.
[45]
The
facts in
Louw
and others v Road Accident Fund
[12]
differed
from the matter before me
.
Mrs
Badenhorst and
Mr
Grobbelaar agreed on virtually every fact and only differed on
whether It is common or not for truck drivers to make a wider
turn.
Conclusion
[46]
The video footage was
accepted by agreement. It shows that the Hino was stationary in the
emergency lane and the right indicator
light was switched on
,
at least at
some point. I accept that this would
have or should have
been visible for the Argosy
and
was an indication that the Hino
intended
to enter
the lane of travel in which the Argosy was
.
I also accept that by
not switching on the hazards of the Hino
,
the Argosy
driver would not have accepted that the vehicle
had mechanical issues
and would remain stationary.
[47]
Mr Dlamini was
adamant that the Argosy was close to his vehicle when he decided to
commence the right turn
.
His initial
evidence was that there rested an obligation on the Argosy driver to
s
t
op
and allow him to make the right turn
.
If the Ar9osy
followed him and he was drivin9 slowly, one may criticise the Argo
.
sy
driver for not following at
a
distance that would enable him io
stop
.
This is not
the case. He later
stated that there
-
in
fact rested an obligation on both drivers1o take care
.
This is more
in line with1he general princ
i
ples
.
[48]
The fact that he knew that he was driving a heavy vehicle and saw
that the Argosy was approaching
"
fa
st”,
placed an
additional duty on him to take care that he does not create the
potential for an accident. He did not do so and resigned
himself to
the erroneous
belief
that the Argosy would
stop
.
[49]
The
experts could not say
whether the accident would have been avoided if the Argosy drove
slower or within the speed limit. Driving
in excess of the speed
limit does not in itself equate to negligence
.
[50]
Although
one
may argue
that
Mr Dlamini did not intend
to
turn into the gravel road but intended to make a U-turn
,
which may
explain -why he
turned
so far beyond the intersection
,
the question
is whether it was safe at all for him to depart from the emergency
lane when he saw the
Argosy approaching.
[51]
The Argosy driver, when he saw or should have observed the right
indicator lights should in my view have
been cautious
that the Hino may
intend
to
enter his
lane of travel. The Argosy's movement to the right of -the road may
be because he thought that he will overtake with safety.
This did
not
absolve him
from keeping a proper
look-out.
[52]
In my view
,
both the
drivers contributed to the accident occurring
.
An
apportionment of negligence should therefore be made
.
In my view
,
the
Defendant’s driver acted unreasonably when he observed the
Argosy, judged it to
-
be
driving fast, knew that it was a heavy vehicle
,
and decided
when it was close (
1
0-15
meters) to him to make the turn across all the lanes
.
The Argosy
dive
r
had
a clear view of the road ahead and the video shows that the Hino was
observable and the indicator light on.
In
view
of
the aforesa
i
d
,
a
larger percentage of
negligence- should- be apportioned against the Defendants
.
I apportion
80% negligence to
the
Defendants and 20%
.
to
the
Plaintiffs
.
[53]
The Plaint
i
ffs
have been substantially successful and costs should follow the
result.
[54]
I therefore make the following order
.
ORDER
1.
The Defendants are
o
r
dered
to pay
80%
of the Plaintiff's damages
,
as may be proved or
agreed.
2.
The Defendants are
directed to pay the
Plaintiffs
costs in relation to the determination of the merits.
P
R CRONJЀ, AJ
On
behalf of the Plaintiffs:
Adv
G S K Van Rensburg
Welgemoed
Attorneys
Graham
Attorneys
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of the Defendants:
Adv
M
Bronkborst
Engelbrecht
Attorneys
McIntyre
Van Der Post Attorneys
Bloemfontein
[1]
1976
(3)
SA
45
(A)
at
52
[2]
2007
(1) SA 165 (SCA)
[3]
1932
AD 19
at
205
[4]
(27227/2020)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 713
[5]
(2011/
43693) (2015] ZAGPJHC 205
[6]
HB
Kloppers
:
The
Law of Collisions in South Africa (7
th
Edition)
,
page
78
[7]
Reference
was
made
to
Galante
.
v
Dickenson
1950
(2)
SA
460
[8]
Auret
N
.
O
obo Kieser v Road Accident Fund
-
(14206/2014)
[2020]
ZAWCHG 19-2
[9]
Reamers
v AA Mutual Insurance Association Limited
1962
(3)
SA
823
(WLD)
a
t
825 E
[10]
Ditsela
v Road Accident Fund
2019
JDR 2317 (GP) at [9]
[11]
[1984]
4 All
-
SA
622 (E) 62-4
-
625
[12]
2024
JDR 0118 (GP
)