IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
Case No: 12062/2020
In the matter between:
BARBARA ELEANOR MARBE N.O. Plaintiff
and
PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA Defendant
Coram: MAGONA-DANO AJ
Heard: 12 & 19 November 2025
Delivered: 29 January 2026
Summary: Train incident and injury to a passenger - Duty to ensure safety of
passengers-negligence and liability when doors of trains are not closed when
train is moving-holding a valid train ticket not a requirement for liability
ORDER
1. In the result, it is ordered that:
(a) The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such damage that
she may prove, or agreed upon, arising out of the train incident that
occurred at Eikenfontein Station on 01 October 2017; and
(b) The defendant shall be liable for payment of the plaintiff’s agreed or
taxed party and party costs, which shall include costs of counsel on High
Court scale B.
JUDGMENT
Magona-Dano, AJ:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an action for damages resulting from Mr. Urich Marbe’s (Mr.
Marbe) alleged bodily harm and injuries caused by the defendant's alleged
negligence. Mr. Marbe is said to have survived the 2017 tragedy. Regretfully,
he died of unrelated causes in October 2024.
[2] According to the Master of the High Court Letter of Executorship dated
11 April 2025, Mrs. Barbara Eleanor Marbe , his mother, was appointed as an
executrix of the estate of the late Mr Marbe.
[3] In accordance with this Court's Uniform Rules, Rule 15(3), a notice of
substitution was submitted in casu where the executrix substituted Mr. Marbe
who was the plaintiff. For the sake of logic, I will refer to the original claimant
as the “deceased plaintiff” and the executrix as “the plaintiff”.
Separation of issues
[4] At the onset of the trial, it was confirmed that the issues of merits and the
quantum of damages were separated and the trial proceeded on the
determination of liability only. The plaintiff bears the onus in proving the case
and therefore had to begin.
The Pleadings
The incident
[5] According to the particulars of claim the deceased plaintiff was a
passenger on the train on the 1st of October 2017 . At approximately 13h00 and
at Eikefontein station, he was seriously injured when he was pushed out of a
moving metro rail train which at all material times was operated by the
defendant.
[6] The deceased plaintiff alleged that the sole cause of him falling off the
moving train was the negligence of the defendant or its employees who at all
material times were acting within the course and scope of their employment by
the defendant, that such persons being negligent in one or more of the following
ways:
‘They allowed the train to travel between stations without ensuring that the doors
thereof were closed.
They failed to maintain the train doors adequately or at all.
They allowed the train to become overcrowded.
They failed to keep the commuters on the train under any control alternatively under
any proper control.
They failed to ensure the safety of commuters on the train adequately or at all.
They failed to post security guards on the train when they should and could have done
so.
They failed to avoid the incident when by the exercise of reasonable care, they could
and should have done so.’
[7] The Defendant’s plea regarding the incident is as follows:
‘The Defendant denies that the Plaintiff was a fare paying passenger on board a
commuter train on 1 October 2017 operated by the Defendant and puts the Plaintiff to
the proof thereof.
The defendant has no knowledge of the alleged incident as pleaded by the plaintiff,
accordingly, denies same and put s the Plaintiff to the proof thereof .
Save as aforesaid, the further allegations contained in this paragraph are denied.1
Further with regard to the allegations of negligence on its part, the Defendant’s plea is
as follows:
The allegations contained in these paragraphs are denied and the Plaintiff is put to the
proof thereof.’2
[8] I turn now to look at the evidence that was presented before me.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
Plaintiff’s case
[9] Two witnesses were called on behalf of the deceased plaintiff’s case, and
they are Ms Nathalie Lenique Marbe (“Mrs Marbe”) and Mrs. Barbara Eleanor
Marbe (“the plaintiff”) testified. Both witnesses testified in Afrikaans, and I am
grateful to Mr Kok who did an outstanding job with the interpretation. I turn
now to look at the evidence led for the Plaintiff’s case.
[10] Mrs Marbe testified as follows:
1 Defendant’s plea para 3, 3.1 to 3.3.
2 Defendant’s Plea para 4.
(a) She was the deceased plaintiff’s sister -in-law. On the day of the
incident, she requested him to accompany her to Brackenfell to
purchase items which were on special at Fruit & Veg.
(b) She bought two single tickets. She identified the deceased plaintiff’s
single ticket which was part of the exhibit bundle.3
(c) She travelled with her baby and the deceased from Eikenf ontein
Station to Brackenfell where she attended to her purchases. They
returned to Brackenfell Station with her purchases and boarded the
train after it had arrived.
(d) The train was very full as SASSA grants were paid on the day.
(e) The train doors were open when the train arrived at Brackenfell
Station. The train doors did not close when it left Brackenfell Station
and did not close at any time until the incident occurred.
(f) After boarding the train another passenger gave up his seat for her
next to the open door. The deceased plaintiff was standing near the
door. He could not move further into the train as it was too full.
(g) As the train moved into Eikenfontein Station some of the passengers
started pushing towards the door to jump out of the train. This usually
happens as some of the passengers try to av oid the ticket
conductors/guards on the station platform.
(h) In the scuffle the deceased plaintiff was pushed out of the open door.
He held onto a steel pipe next to the train door. The bottom half of his
body however was underneath the platform whilst the top half was
above the platform as the train was still moving.
(i) She shouted to fellow passengers to assist the deceased plaintiff. Two
passengers assisted by supporting him under his shoulders.
(j) The train eventually stopped and they placed the deceased plaintiff on
the platform. He could not move on his own and just lay there.
3 Witness Exhibit A: page 2.
(k) She left her baby with a friend on the platform and ran to the deceased
plaintiff’s parents’ home which is close to the station to report this,
but they were not at home. She returned to the train station.
(l) A security guard phoned the ambulance.
(m) Eventually the deceased plaintiff’s parents arrived as well as the
ambulance. The deceased was taken away in the ambulance with the
plaintiff accompanying him.
(n) The deceased plaintiff sustained an injury to his right leg. His foot
was lying at an un natural angle and the injury eventually resulted in
the right leg being amputated later on.
(o) There was no security personnel deployed on the train.
(p) On cross examination, she confirmed that she deposed to an affidavit
on 7 August 2019 wherein she indicates the following:
‘As we approached Eikenhof ( sic)Station the other passengers on the train
became restless and moved around a lot. I was busy getting my baby ready to
disembark the train. After I disembarked the train at Eikenhof ( sic) Station I
notice that Ulrich was not with me anymore and I started to look for him. I found
him lying on the platform with his leg covered in blood.’
(q) She explained that the statement was not read back to her when she
signed it. She is Afrikaans speaking and would have explained in
Afrikaans what had happened prior to the drafting of the affidavit.
(r) The incident occurred as she had testified in Court. She threw away
her train ticket she did not think it was ever going to be needed, she
does not know why the deceased plaintiff kept his.
(s) The tickets are sometimes issued without the relevant station you
asked for, that is standard practice with ticket office. That she must
have lost the time with regard to the time of the incident and the time
she bought tickets but certain that she bought the tickets first.
(t) On re-examination she further confirmed that the PRASA ticket office
usually issues tickets reflecting train stations that cover the areas
beyond that which you requested. In other words, your route will be
covered within the train stations reflected on the ticket.
[11] Barbara Eleanor Marbe (the plaintiff) testified as follows:
(a) She was the mother of the deceased plaintiff.
(b) On the day of the incident when she came back from church, she was
advised that the deceased plaintiff was involved in a train accident.
(c) Upon arrival at the Eikenfontein Station she found the deceased
plaintiff lying on the platform with an injured right lower leg.
(d) She sat with him on the platform until the ambulance arrived taking him
to Tygerberg hospital. A PRASA official requested the deceased
plaintiff’s name, address and age , as well as whether he had a valid
train ticket. The deceased plaintiff showed his train ticket to the PRASA
official but did not hand it over.
(e) The plaintiff kept the train ticket and gave it to the attorney that she
consulted with the next day after the incident.
(f) The deceased plaintiff’s injury eventually resulted in his right leg being
amputated sometime during the course of 2018.
[12] Exhibit A was handed in and formed part of the bundle of documents
proven as evidence to this court , the defendant did not contest . I will deal with
the bundle’s content further below.
The Defendant’s case
[13] No evidence was led on behalf of the defendant and Ms Masupye for the
defendant simply closed its case.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[14] Whether the deceased plaintiff was indeed in the train or within the
railway danger zone when he was injured?
[15] Whether PRASA’S negligence was proven considering the standard
elements for a delictual claim?
[16] Whether PRASA’s defence on paper that the plaintiff had no valid ticket ,
can absolve it from liability for failing to prevent foreseeable harm?
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[17] It is trite that the party on whom the onus lies is required to satisfy the
court that he is entitled to succeed on his claim or defence.4
[18] In Mashongwa v PRASA 5 , the Constitutional Court, following the
principle established in Rail Commuters 6 case, confirmed that the defendant
owed a public duty to rail commuters and described this duty as follows:
‘[26] Safeguarding the physical and well -being of passengers must be a central
obligation of PRASA. It reflects the ordinary duty resting on public carrier ’s and is
reinforced by the specific constitutional obligation to pro tect passengers’ bodily
integrity that rests on PRASA, as an organ of state. The norms and values derived
from the Constitution demand that a negligent breach of those duties, even by w ay of
omission, should, absent a suitable non-judicial remedy, attract liability to compensate
injured persons in damages.’
4 Pillay v Krishna and another 1946 AD 946 952- 953.
5 (CCT03/15) [2015] ZACC 36.
6 Rail Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC) para 82.
[19] Therefore, there can be no denying that a public carrier like the defendant
has a legal duty towards its passengers to protect them from any form of harm
while they make use of their transport services. This duty includes, inter alia,
ensuring that:
(a) the doors of the train are properly closed when the train is in motion;
and
(b) there is no overcrowding on the trains and the list goes on.7
[20] In Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Limited t/a
Metrorail and others8 inter alia held that:
‘In these circumstances, I conclude that Metrorail and the Commuter Corporation bear
a positive obligation arising from the provisions of the SATS Act read with the
provisions of the Constitution to ensure that reasonable measures are in place to
provide for the security of rail commuters when they provide rail co mmuter services
under the SATS Act. It should be clear from the duty thus formulated that it is a duty
to ensure that reasonable measures are in place. It does not matter who provides the
measures as long as they are in place. The responsibility for ens uring that measures
are in place, regardless of who may be implementing them, rests with Metrorail and
the Commuter Corporation.’
[21] Our Constitutional Court has dealt with the duty of PRASA towards its
passengers in Baloyi v Passenger Rail Agency of Sou th Africa (PRASA) 9 it was
repeated at para 27 that:
‘It was a basic fundamental requirement for the safe operation of a passenger train in
any country that “a train should not depart with a door open”. The prohibition of
trains travelling with open doors keeping the doors of the train closed whilst in motion
is an “essential safety procedure” (paragraph 26). Travelling with open trains doors is
a negligent act.’
7 Mashongwa supra note 5; Rail Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC).
8 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC).
9 2018 JDR 2044 (GJ) para 20.
[22] The claim in casu is delictual in nature and accordingly the plaintiff bore
the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, all the elements necessary to
sustain a finding that the defendant is liable in delict for the damages the
plaintiff suffered. Conversely, the defe ndant bears a burden of rebuttal in
respect of its defence.
Discussion and Evaluation of the Evidence
Submissions by the legal representatives
[22] Mr Du Toit for the plaintiff submitted that the y have presented a
watertight case proving the incident and the basis for alleging that the accident
occurred as a result of negligence of the defendant and/or its employees.
[23] I was referred to various parts of Mrs Marbe’s evidence. That she was the
only person who could narrate the story about how and when the incident took
place. She was detailed as to the sitting arrangements inside of the train, the
capacity of the carriage they were in and how everyone stood, including the
deceased plaintiff. She could also give an account of when the incident took
place and how it took place. Her evidence remained unrefuted.
[24] She gave a reasonable explanation as to why her earlier affidavit d id not
contain certain information that she testified in court.
[25] Mrs. Marbe’s evidence confirm ed that the train doors were open at all
material times, that the train was allowed to become overcrowded and that no
security personnel were deployed on the train.
[26] Mr Du Toit made further submissions to the effect that PRASA should be
held delictually liable for damages that flow from a breach of its public law duty
to provide safety and security measures for its commuters, I was also referred to
the case of Mashongwa v PRASA.10
[27] The issues of wrongfulness, negligence, and causation where a train
travels with open doors and a passenger falls out for whatever reason have been
dealt with comprehensively in Mashongwa.
[28] Adv. Masupye for the defendant submitted that the first witness Mrs
Marbe’s testimony ought to not to be accepted as she was not a credible
witness.
[29] That her testimony that the train was full as SASSA grant recipients who
were paid on that day, 1 st October 2017 on a Sunday was untrue. SASSA grants
are never paid on a Sunday; it cannot therefore not be true that the train was full
on a Sunday mid-morning.
[30] Further, Mrs. Marbe testified that the incident took place at around 11:30,
yet the train ticket was bought at 11:47, and she could not explain to the court
how it is, that the incident occurred before the train ticket was bought.
[31] Mrs Mabe was asked why the train ticket was written that it was a
‘Bellville to Klapmuts’ train ticket instead of ‘Eikenfontein to Brackenfell’, the
latter were her departure and destination stations . She could not provide the
Court with an answer but said to date that the PRASA ticket office issues tickets
10 2016 (3) SA 528 (CC).
in this manner . Her example given was that she recently travelled from Paarl,
the train ticket d id not reflect Paarl but further stations . She had no exhibit to
back her statement to show the Court that indeed th at is the practice on issued
tickets around Cape Town.
[32] That Mrs Marbe was cross examined about the Affidavit that she deposed
on 7 August 2019, her affidavit did not correlate with her testimony. In her
testimony in court she testified that she saw people holding Ulrich ( the
deceased plaintiff) in an attempt to assist him onto the platform, yet in the
Affidavit she stated that she was busy getting he r child ready to disembark the
train and noticed that the deceased plaintiff was not with them anymore and
started to look for him where she found him already lying on the platform ,
injured.
[33] Further that she confirmed in court that the content of her Affidavit was
not correct, that her claim that the statement was not read and translated back by
her Attorney (from English to Afrikaans) was far from the truth. Ms Masupye
further submitted that she stated so because both Counsel and the firm of
Attorneys were Afrikaans speaking , it was improbable that they did not
understand her when taking the statement and writing it downing English.
[34] Ms Masupye further argued that there was no train ticket discovered on
behalf of Mrs Marbe, the first witness to confirm that she was with the deceased
plaintiff on the day of the incident. Therefore, the absence of a train ticket
should raise doubt whether she was even on the train. Moreover, regarding the
plaintiff’s testimony, she testified that the Attorneys visited the deceased
plaintiff and her the day after the incident (not “a couple of days later” as per
plaintiff’s heads of argument reflected). This was when the train ticket that
allegedly belonged to the deceased plaintiff was handed over to the Attorneys.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
Was there a train accident?
[35] I have considered the evidence and submissions made by both Counsel.
[36] The case for the plaintiff was supported by the only witness, the deceased
plaintiff’s sister-in-law, who gave a clear account of what took place on the date
of the incident.
[37] She was the sole individual to provide testimony regarding the events that
occurred inside the train, both prior to and following the incident. She offered a
detailed account of the positions of the passengers inside the train including the
deceased plaintiff. She described the sequence of events during the incident, as
well as the actions taken by those who attempted to assist and rescue the
deceased plaintiff upon arrival at their intended destination , Eiken fontein
station. This evidence was not refuted.
[38] She clarified the discrepancy between her statement and what was
recorded, noting that the latter was never read back to her. She also addressed
the train ticket issue, explaining that tickets often display different station names
than the actual route but broad enough to cover it, which is frequent practice
with PRASA’s ticket issuing offices.
[39] In my view she was a credible witness and testified in a candid manner .
Her demeanor gave the impression that she was giving an h onest and sincere
account of what took place.
[40] Mrs Marbe’s unrefuted evidence confirmed that there was a train
accident, the carriage doors remained open throughout the journey, it was full,
people started pushing as the train approached the platform which led to the
deceased plaintiff becoming a victim sustaining an injury to his one leg and was
later taken to the Tygerberg hospital.
[41] This witness’s evidence was corroborated by Exhibit A 11 submitted on
behalf of the plaintiff’s case which reflects PRASA’s incident report entered at
12h50 and again at 14h 57 confirming of a train incident that took place, with
the description of the nature of the victim’s injury as a ‘left leg is broken ’ and
the deceased plaintiff’s name reflected thereon. He was then taken to Tygerberg
Hospital.
[42] Further, Exhibit A carries an ‘Emergency Medical Services Report ’
which records the ambulance personnel’s report of attendance to the scene on 1
October 2017, the deceased plaintiff’s name reflected as the victim. It is further
stipulated that there was an injury to his ‘leg’ and he was ‘in severe pain ’, the
time was recorded as about 12h47, his next of kin was entered as the plaintiff.
[43] I detailed the evidence of Mrs. Marbe who was inside the train as and when
the incident took place, the doors of the train from take -off were ajar and there
were no security personnel on the train to ensure that the train carriage doors
were closed while the train was in motion.
11 Page 3-4.
[44] In my view based on all the above, it cannot be seriously argued that the
incident never took place or that PRASA had no knowledge of it. I n that regard
I find that on a balance of probabilities the plaintiff has proven that the incident
did take place.
[45] Next would be whether PRASA’s omission to provide all relevant safety
measures to its passengers was negligent on its side and whether this failure was
the direct or proximate cause of the injury sustained by the deceased plaintiff.
I consider each of these issues in turn.
Legal Duty- (Wrongfulness)
[47] In Shabalala v Metrorail 12it was held that , Metrorail owed commuters a
legal duty to take such steps as were reasonable to provide for commuter safety
and that the failure to take such steps would render it liable in delict.
[48] It is trite that as a public carrier, operating in the public inter est, PRASA
is expected to operate trains which are safe for the purpose of conveying
passengers, and it has a legal duty to the public at large to take such steps that
are reasonably necessary to ensure the safety of commuters whilst travelling on
any of its trains.
[49] The public law duty to provide transport that is safe and secure for
commuters manifests itself in the private -law legal duty to prevent harm to
commuters.13 The facts above reflect PRASA ’s failure in its legal duty to
prevent the type of harm sustained by the deceased plaintiff.
12 2008 (3) SA 142 (SCA). See also Rail Commuters supra note 6 para 20.
13 Mashongwa supra note 5 paras [28]-[29].
[50] In my view , PRASA was required to take reasonable steps to ensure the
safe passage of commuters (including the deceased plaintiff) and any failure to
take such steps rendered it liable in delict.
[51] This leads to the question whether or not, in this case, PRASA complied
with its legal obligations; in other words, whether or not, it was negligent in
relation to the deceased plaintiff.
Duty of Care (Negligence)
[52] The classic test for establishing the existence or otherwise of negligence
is that formulated by Holmes JA in Kruger v Coetzee14that:
‘(a) a diligens pat erfamilias in the position of the defendant (i) would
foresee the reasonable possibility of his conduct injuring another in his
person or property and causing him patrimonial loss, and (ii) would take
reasonable steps to guard against such occurrence, and (b) the defendant
failed to take such steps.’
[53] With regard to the facts of this matter, PRASA’s alleged negligent
conduct was that it had operated a moving train without ensuring that the doors
were closed.
[54] It has been found in many courts as well as in Passenger Rail Agency of
South Africa v Moabelo 15 that an open train door is a potential danger while the
14 1966 (2) SA 428 (A) at 430E-G.
train is in motion and that potential danger exists in relation to every commuter
on board the train.
[55] In Mashongwa16 it was emphasised that the defendant’s duty to keep the
train doors closed while the train was moving existed to prevent passengers
from falling out of the train. Doors exist not merely to facilitate entry and exit of
passengers, but also to secure those inside from danger.
[56] In Transnet Ltd and another v Witter 17, the SCA also held that a train
leaving a station with open doors constitutes negligence.
[57] Therefore, for PRASA to meet the minimum safety standards required of
it as a commuter rail operator, it had to ensure that a commuter train does not
depart from the station with open carriage doors, and that the doors thereof must
remain closed while the train is in motion.
[58] In my view, in casu as far as the doors are concerned, in failing to ensure
that the doors of the moving train were closed, PRASA failed in its duty. The
unrefuted evidence before this court is that the doors were opened whilst the
train was in motion, Mrs Ma rbe testified that they were always open even as
they alighted the train coach in Brackenfell.
[59] If the doors were closed, as they should have been, and could easily have
been, when people started pushing inside the carriage , the accident would never
have occurred since the doors would have been shut.
15 [2017] 4 All SA 648 (SCA).
16 Supra 5 note para 60.
17 Transnet Ltd. t/a Metrorail and Another v Witter [2008] (6) SA 549 (SCA).
[60] Therefore the open doors resulted in the oc currence of the train accident
in question and in this regard, negligence is attributed to the defendant.
[61] On a preponderance of probabilities, the deceased plaintiff would not
have sustained the injuries that later led to the amputation of his leg , had
PRASA kept the doors of the train closed on the date of this incident . PRASA
failed in its duty of care.
Causation
[62] No legal system permits liability without bounds. It is universally
accepted that a way must be found to impose limitation on the wrongdoer’s
liability. The imputation of liability to the wrongdoer depends on whether the
harmful conduct is too remotely con nected to the harm caused or closely
connected to it.
[63] When proximity has been established, then liability ought to be imputed
to the wrongdoer provided policy considerations based on the norms and values
of our Constitution and justice also point to the reasonableness of imputing
liability to the defendant.18
[64] The incident took place from a moving train whose door s were ajar
throughout and as it enter ed the platform of Eikenfontein station, the opened
doors resulted to the deceased plaintiff sustaining an injury to his leg , as there
was pushing inside the carriage, all that later led to the leg being amputated
(harm caused). All this can be said to be l egally connected to PRASA’s failure
18 Mashongwa supra note 5 para [68].
to take preventative measures of keeping the coach doors closed as the train was
moving (harmful conduct).
[65] This points to negligence on the part of PRASA. The deceased plaintiff,
being the holder of a valid ticket on the day of the incident and being a person
lawfully on the train.
[66] In the present matter, PRASA failed to display or observe the degree of
care required by law, of which the standards required are those of a reasonable
man in the position of PRASA. The liability arises if a reasonable man would
foresee the likelihood of his conduct injuring another in his person or property
and would take reasonable steps to avoid the injury but failed to take such
steps.19
As PRASA failed to take reasonable care, such resulted in the injury to the
plaintiff, it should be held liable for his damages.
[67] PRASA is further under a public law duty to protect its commuters , such
cannot be disputed, but the courts have gone a step further to pronounce that the
duty concerned, together with constitutional values, have mutated to a private
law duty to prevent harm to commuters.20
[68] There is thus a duty on PRASA to take active s teps to guard against harm
which may come to commuters. In this case, PRASA failed to take such steps,
specifically failing to ensure that the doors of the coach remained closed at all
times.
19 Mthombeni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (13304/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 614 (27 September 2021)
para 14.
20 Shabalala v Metrorail (062/07) 2008 (3) SA 142 (SCA); Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and another v
Witter 2008 (6) SA 549 (SCA).
Train Ticket
[69] I turn now to look at PRASA’s contention that the plaintiff’s claim ought
to fail because the deceased plaintiff allegedly did not possess a valid train
ticket at the time of sustaining injuries on the PRASA train.
[70] In terms of Section 12 of the Constitution every person the right to
freedom and security of the person, including the right to be free from all forms
of violence, whether from public or private sources.
[71] In Mashongwa, it was held that PRASA bears a positive constitutional
duty to take reasonable measures to protect pa ssengers from foreseeable harm
while using its services.
[72] The Court emphasised that the duty arises because of the nature of
PRASA’s operations, not because of the existence of a ticket. In casu Ms
Masupye made submissions that the deceased plaintiff had no valid ticket as a
result he was a trespasser.
[73] In my view this argument cannot stand , this defence is misconceived,
legally untenable, and irrelevant to the question of PRASA’s delictual liability.
The absence of a ticket is not a statutory requ irement for liability and does not
extinguish the duty of care owed by PRASA to commuters.
[74] In any event and for completeness sake, in casu a ticket allegedly
belonging to the deceased plaintiff was handed in court as part of exhibit A, the
plaintiff - as his mother testified that the ticket belonged to the deceased
plaintiff as it was in her safe custody for a while before it was handed over to
the Attorneys - the day after the incident.
CONCLUSION
[75] On the conspectus of evidence presented, I am satisfied that the plaintiff
has discharged the onus (on behalf of the deceased’s plaintiff) on a balance of
probabilities.
[76] In the result, the following order stands to follow:
[2]. The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for such
damages that she may prove, or be agreed upon, arising out of the
incident that occurred at Eikenfontein Station on 01 October 2017; and
[3]. The defendant shall be liable for payment of the plaintiff’s agreed
or taxed party and party costs, which shall include costs of counsel on
High Court scale B.
___________________________
MAGONA-DANO, AJ
Acting Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Western Cape Division, Cape Town
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv. Albie Du Toit
Attorney Marzahn Fourie Attorneys Inc.
For the Defendant: Adv. Masupye
Attorneys Nthambeleni Inc.