---

FORM A

FILING SHEET FOR SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION JUDGMENT

PARTIES:

RONALD ALFRED WILLIAMS Plaintiff

and

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant

• Case Number: 1890/2007

• High Court: South Eastern Cape Local Division

DATE HEARD: 18 September 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 19 September 2008

JUDGE(S): Chetty, J

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES –

Appearances:

• For the Plaintiff(s): Adv Nepgen

• for the Defendant(s): Adv Dala

Instructing attorneys:

• Plaintiff(s): De Villiers & Partners

• Defendant(s): Boqwana Loon & Connellan

CASE INFORMATION -

• Nature of proceedings : Civil Trial

• Topic: Motor Vehicle Accident

• Key Words: Motor vehicle accident – claim for personal injuries – assessment of evidence

NOT REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION – PORT ELIZABETH)

In the matter between: Case No: 1890/2007

RONALD ALFRED WILLIAMS Plaintiff

and

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant

Coram: Chetty, J

Date Heard: 18 September 2008

Date Delivered: 19 September 2008

Summary: Motor vehicle accident – claim for personal injuries – assessment of evidence

_______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

_______________________________________________________________

CHETTY, J

[1] This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff when a motor vehicle collided with him on the evening of 11 October 2002 at the intersection of Lockhead and Community Streets in the residential suburb of Walmer, Port Elizabeth. The only triable issue which remains for decision is that of negligence.

[2] The facts are simple and straightforward. The plaintiff was walking home along the right hand side of 5^th Avenue en route to his home and stopped on the kerb at the intersection of Community Road and 5^th Avenue. He observed a vehicle travelling along Community Road from his right approaching the stop sign at the intersection. The vehicle’s headlights were on and it came to a standstill at the stop sign. It remained stationary for a while. The plaintiff looked at the driver and it appeared to him that by stopping for longer than was necessary, the driver had thereby not only acknowledged his presence but had granted him the right of way. He accordingly crossed in front of the stationary vehicle and had proceeded to roughly in front of it when he suddenly felt intense pain and realised that he had in fact been struck by the vehicle. As he lay prone on the tarred surface he noticed the vehicle moving forward and turning slightly to avoid running over him and it stopped next to where he lay. The driver peered at him but when he asked him for assistance, none was forthcoming, the driver nonchalantly driving off.

[3] It is not in issue that the driver was traced the same night and subsequently charged in the magistrate’s court. It appears from a portion of the transcript of those proceedings which was handed in by counsel and received in evidence as exhibit “A” that the driver had been drinking prior to the collision with the plaintiff. During the plaintiff’s cross-examination at the criminal trial it was put to him that the driver could not dispute the plaintiff’s version of the events which unfolded as his memory had been severely compromised and that the only thing he could recall was, as put, “(he) vaguely remembers arriving at house”.(sic)

[4] Although the defendant’s counsel did not seriously challenge the plaintiff’s version it was suggested to him that he contributed to the collision. Counsel sought to extract an admission from the plaintiff that he negligently crossed in front of the stationary vehicle on the false assumption that it was safe to do so whereas in fact it was not, the driver not having signalled that the plaintiff could pass safely. With hindsight, an assumption, correctly made at the time is often shown to be wrong for it is overtaken by events. However, the plaintiff’s assumption that he had been afforded the right of way is on the uncontroverted evidence not misplaced. The driver saw him, stopped at the stop sign, looked in the plaintiff’s direction and must, perforce, have seen the plaintiff cross in front of his vehicle because the plaintiff was struck virtually mid vehicle. In such circumstances it scarcely behoves the defendant to allege that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. In my judgment, the plaintiff has established that the collision was occasioned by the sole negligence of the insured driver.

[5] In the result the following order will issue:

1. There will be judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of R100 000, 00 together with costs of suit.

2. The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of s 17 (4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.

________________________

D. CHETTY

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Obo the Plaintiff: Adv Nepgen

(instructed by De Villiers & Partners)

Obo the Defendant: Adv Dala

(instructed by Boqwana Loon & Connellan)

---