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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAFSHC 283
|
|
KM T[...] on behalf of L T[...] v Road Accident Fund (2572/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 283 (5 September 2025)
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 HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
no: 2572/2023
In
the matter between:
K[…]
M[…] T[...]
on
behalf of L[…] T[...]
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
[ML-1027
2022 15504]
DEFENDANT
Neutral
citation:
KM T[...] on behalf of L T[...] v Road Accident Fund
(2572/2023)
[2025] ZAFSHC 283
(5 September 2025)
Coram:
Van Zyl J
Heard
:
4 and 5 March 2025
Delivered
:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by e-mail
and released to SAFLII.
The date and time for hand down is deemed to be5 September 2025 at
12h50.
Summary
:
Motor vehicle accident with pedestrian – driver of the
motor vehicle 100% negligent in the causation of the accident
–
ordered to pay proven or agreed damages.
ORDER
1
The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s proven
or agreed damages.
2
The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action to date,
counsel’s fees to be paid
on scale A.
JUDGMENT
Van
Zyl J
[1]
The plaintiff issued summons on behalf of L[…] T[…]
(‘the minor’) for damages which
the minor suffered as a
result of injuries she sustained during an accident when the minor,
as a pedestrian, was struck by the
mirror of the insured motor
vehicle on 23 April 2022 at Koffiefontein, Free State Province.
[2]
During the pre-trial, dated 7 May 2025, the parties agreed that in
terms of rule 33(4) the special plea and
merits are to be separated
from the issue of quantum.
[3]
On 4 March 2025 I adjudicated the special plea and made the following
order:
‘
1.
The special plea is dismissed.
2.
The defendant shall pay the costs of the said dismissal.
3.
The matter stands down to 5 March 2025
.’
[4]
The trial thereupon continued on 5 March 2025.
[5]
Mrs Gouws, who appeared on behalf of the defendant, indicated that
she holds no instructions from the defendant
regarding the merits of
the action. Although she remained present during the further
proceedings, the trial technically continued
by default.
[6]
The evidence of the minor was presented with the assistance of an
interpreter. She testified that she
was born on 10 June 2011
and was attending Grade 8 at school.
[7]
On the day of the accident the minor and her cousin, O[…],
were at the minor’s aunt’s home
and they were sent to
fetch pots from her grandmother’s house. When they
reached one T[…]’s house and
were about to cross the
street, a white vehicle appeared. O[…] crossed the road but
the minor waited for the white vehicle.
She testified that she
was standing on the grass. Whilst the minor was waiting for the white
vehicle to pass, a dark blue Polo
vehicle appeared from out of the
blue. The mirror of the blue vehicle struck the minor, she fell to
the ground and then the rear
wheel of the blue vehicle drove over her
ankle. The blue vehicle stopped on the other side of the road
and the driver alighted
with his son. The driver and his son
were unknown to the minor.
[8]
The minor called out to her cousin and requested her to call the
minor’s mother since the accident happened
just opposite the
street from her house. O[…] called the minor’s
mother and her aunts also came to the scene.
When the minor’s
mother arrived, they got into the blue vehicle and the driver drove
them to the doctor. However, the
doctor was not present and the
nurse who was present, told them that she cannot assist in any way.
She did however call an
ambulance.
[9]
The minor`s mother told the driver to go to the police station to
report the accident. At the police
station the minor’s
mother and the driver of the blue vehicle made statements. The
minor’s mother told her that the
name of the driver was Thabiso
Maselaine Thereafter the driver of the blue vehicle took the minor
home where they waited for the
ambulance. When the ambulance
arrived, the minor was taken to Lenmed Hospital in Kimberley.
[10]
The minor testified that due to the accident she broke her ankle.
Her ankle was on operated and two screws were
inserted into her
ankle. At a later stage she underwent a second operation during
which the two screws were removed.
[11]
During the minor’s further evidence, two exhibits were handed
in. Exhibit A was a sketch which the minor
made portraying the
direction and turns in the roads relevant to the accident. Exhibit B
is a photo of the scene where the accident
occurred. From the
exhibits it is evident that three roads join together to form a type
of T-junction. The minor testified
that she does not know
whether there were any stop signs, but no stop signs are visible on
the photo Exhibit B. She made
marks on both exhibits A and B as
to where she was standing, the direction from which she thinks the
blue vehicle approached and
from which direction the white vehicle
approached. The minor was standing almost at the rounded corner
of one part of the
T-junction. It is evident that it is a
tarred road which goes right up to the pavement on its sides.
The pavement,
as testified by the minor, was covered with grass,
which seems almost to be part of a lawn. According to the minor
she was
standing on the grass next to the road when the mirror of the
blue vehicle struck her. She did not stand on the road surface
itself. After the mirror struck her, she fell forward onto the
road surface, which is when the rear wheel of the blue vehicle
drove
over her ankle.
[12]
According to the minor she unable to estimate how fast the blue
vehicle was driving, as it appeared out of the blue from
her left
hand side towards her backside and she saw it for the first time when
it struck her. The white vehicle, which was
traveling in the
opposite direction, was driving very fast, that being the reason why
the minor waited on the grass for the white
vehicle to pass.
[13]
What is evident from the evidence of the minor, considered in
conjunction with Exhibits A and B, is that whilst the blue
vehicle
was supposed to have been traveling in the left lane, the exact spot
where the vehicle’s mirror struck the minor,
is on the side of
the right lane of the road in which the blue vehicle was traveling;
hence, the incorrect side.
[14]
The minor also testified that she did not see where the white vehicle
went after she was struck by the mirror of the
blue vehicle.
The blue vehicle parked opposite the street which she was due to
cross before she was struck by the mirror.
Although there was a
pedestrian who saw the accident happen the minor does not have any
knowledge of her identity. Her cousin,
O[…], did also
not see how the accident occurred, since she was busy crossing the
street with her back turned towards the
side of minor.
Consideration
of the evidence:
[15]
Ms Feza, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, submitted that
despite the fact that the minor is still youthful and
that the
accident occurred almost three years ago, the minor gave a proper and
chronological version of the events. I agree
with her
submission.
[16]
On face value it appears to be strange that the blue vehicle would
have struck the minor if she was standing on the grass
next to the
road, on the pavement, like she testified, but considering that at
the point of impact, the blue vehicle was traveling
on the incorrect
side of the road, it is, in my view, evident that the driver did not
have proper control over his vehicle at that
time. He was
either driving right next to the pavement on the incorrect side of
the road or his vehicle might even have bumped
into the said pavement
and onto the pavement (grass part) itself. Whichever way it happened,
it is clear that the minor was not
negligent in any manner and was
standing in a position where she should have been standing
considering that she was awaiting to
cross the road after the white
vehicle passed her. There is also nothing which she could have
done to prevent the accident.
[17]
In the circumstances I find that the plaintiff proved on a balance of
probabilities that the driver of the insured vehicle
acted 100%
negligent in the causation of the accident.
Order:
1
The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s proven
or agreed damages.
2
The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action to date,
counsel’s fees to be paid
on scale A.
C
VAN ZYL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For
the plaintiff:
N
A Feza
Instructed
by:
Nangamso
Mentjies Inc.
C/o
Thebe Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ref:
MA/MVA018
e-mail:
mentjiesnangamso06@gmail.com
For
the defendant:
J
Gouws
Instructed
by:
Office
of the State Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ref:
ML-1027 2022 15504
e-mail:
johandig@raf.co.za