His car stopped, he said, at the very point of impact.
In order to determine which of these two diametrically differing versions was the
more probable, the trial court correctly looked at certain extraneous factors. One of the most important of these was the damage
to the vehicles. The evidence of an insurance assessor was that the damage to the respondent’s car involved the whole of the
left side from the left front doorpost. The left hand front door and the left hand backdoor were both extensively damaged, as was
the left back fender. Constable C.M. Dlamini who attended the scene of the collision testified that the appellant’s car was
damaged “right in front”. He said the damage was to the headlamps and the front grille. This confirmed Permoter’s
evidence that the damage to the appellant’s car involved “the whole front or mostly 80% of the front (It) was damaged
as in the radiator, grille, everything”.
Constable Dlamini also handed in to the trial court a sketch plan of the scene as
he found it. It showed that the appellant’s car after the collision staddled the fast lane. It was standing obliquely with
its nose facing slightly away from the direction from which it had come. The point of impact which he established from “some
pieces of glass, headlamps and the front grille and the vehicle there” was in the fast lane but near the solid barrier line.
It is quite clear from the damage to the vehicles that the appellant’s version
of the collision cannot be the correct one. There was no damage to the front of the respondent’s car which one would have expected
if, as appellant testified, it had collided from the rear with him, as he had practically stopped in the fast lane. Nor was there
any damage to the rear or side of the appellant’s car other than to the right front fender. The fact that almost the entire
front of the appellant’s car and the entire left side of the respondent’s car were damaged accords far more with Permoter’s
version than that of appellant. The position of the appellant’s car after the collision is, as the trial court correctly found,
also evidence consistent rather
with Permoter’s version than that of appellant.
The trial court was therefore correct in finding that the respondent had, on a balance
of probabilities, established that it was appellant’s negligence that had caused the collision. The amount of the damages was
not disputed. Accordingly this Court dismissed the appeal, with costs.
DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 22ND OF NOVEMBER 2002.
_______________________
P.H. TEBBUTT
Judge of Appeal
_______________________
I agree
R.N. LEON
Judge President
I agree
______________________
J.H. STEYN
Judge of Appeal
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/sz/cases/SZCA/2002/38.html
