In a January 2025 judgment the high court dealt with a claim for compensation by the claimant, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 27 March 2017. The claimant sought damages from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for injuries sustained in the collision. The central issue in this case was whether the accident was caused by the negligence of the insured driver(s) and, if so, partly by the negligence of the claimant and whether the claimant was entitled to compensation. The court held that the defendant, RAF, was liable for 100% of the claimant’s proven or agreed damages arising from the accident.
On 27 March 2017, the claimant was driving his vehicle in a westerly direction on Mzala Molise Street, Botshabelo, when he approached a T-junction and slowed down with the intention of turning right. At this point, an Iveco vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction. The claimant noticed an Audi A4 overtaking the Iveco and entering his lane of travel. To avoid a collision with the oncoming Audi, the claimant quickly turned right into the adjoining gravel road. Despite his efforts, the claimant collided with the Iveco, resulting in injuries and damage to his vehicle. The claimant alleged that the sole cause of the collision was the negligence of the insured driver(s), either the driver of the Iveco or the unknown driver of the Audi, or both. The claimant claimed that the insured drivers were negligent in traveling at high speed, failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to keep their vehicles under proper control, and failing to avoid the accident.
The defendant denied that either of the insured drivers were negligent and argued that the accident was caused by the claimant’s negligence. The defendant contended that the claimant was traveling at high speed, failed to keep his vehicle under proper control, and failed to avoid the accident. The defendant also raised the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
The primary legal issue was whether the insured driver(s) were negligent and whether their negligence caused the accident. The court had to determine if the claimant was entitled to compensation from the RAF and if there was any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the testimonies of the claimant and the police officer who attended the scene of the accident. The court found that the claimant was confronted with a sudden emergency caused by the oncoming Audi overtaking the Iveco and entering his lane of travel. The court noted that the claimant had only a split second to react and took the reasonable action of turning right to avoid a collision.
The court also considered the credibility of the witnesses and the consistency of their testimonies. The claimant’s account of the events was found to be more consistent and plausible compared to the conflicting testimonies of the police officer.
The court found that the actions of the insured driver(s) were negligent and that their negligence caused the accident. The court dismissed the defendant’s argument of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
Molaoa v Road Accident Fund (4358/2018) [2025] ZAFSHC 2 (14 January 2025)