In April 2025, the High Court found that local authorities can be held liable for failing to prevent hazardous road conditions, specifically water pooling on a municipal freeway.
The claimant suffered catastrophic injuries after losing control of his vehicle on a flooded municipal freeway late at night. The claimant suffered from amnesia and was unable to testify regarding the incident. Through the evidence of expert and lay witnesses, the claimant’s legal team alleged that the claimant’s vehicle encountered a large body of water on the road, hydroplaned, spun out, and crashed into a tree, leaving the claimant paraplegic. The claim was brought against the municipality responsible for the maintenance of the roadway.
Central to the claimant’s case was the testimony of civil engineering and accident reconstruction experts. The accident reconstruction expert explained that aquaplaning (also known as hydroplaning) occurs when a layer of water builds up between a vehicle’s tyres and the road surface, leading to a complete loss of traction. According to the claimant’s civil engineering expert, the road in question had a “flat section” where water was prone to accumulate if not properly drained. The topography of the surrounding land also made it likely that surface water would pool on the roadway in heavy rainfall. Crucially, an eyewitness stated she saw a large section of the road covered in water, with the flooding extending beyond the centre line. Both a responding police officer and an attending paramedic confirmed there was standing water at the scene.
When the municipality sought absolution from the instance arguing that the claimant had not produced enough evidence to establish a prima facie case on all elements of his claim—the court set out the legal test for determining whether the claimant’s case is strong enough to continue. At this stage of the proceedings, courts do not demand proof on a balance of probabilities but merely enough evidence that a reasonable court “can or may” (not should or ought to) find liability. The credibility of witnesses plays a minimal role at this stage and the evidence led, absent exceptional circumstances, is assumed to be true. The court may consider that a claimant’s case might be supplemented by evidence emerging during the defendant’s case. In this matter, the court deemed the claimant’s evidence sufficient to overcome that minimal threshold, shifting the burden on the municipality to counter the claims.
Among the most significant aspects of this decision is the court’s willingness to draw inferences from circumstantial evidence. Although the claimant could not prove that the drains were blocked or grass verge was overgrown on the night of the accident, the court drew an inference that the pooling of water on the road observed by the factual witnesses was caused by blocked drains and overgrown vegetation as the municipality could not elicit from or suggest any other reason to the claimant’s appointed expert for the water to pond on the road.
When the case continues the municipality must now show that it fulfilled its obligations, thereby challenging whether water flow and drainage were managed responsibly in that section of the freeway.
Once all the evidence is heard, the court will decide whether the claimant has proven his claim on a balance of probabilities and whether the municipality should be held liable for his injuries. Although not final in effect, this judgment on absolution nevertheless provides some important guidance on the treatment of evidence in liability claims based on road design and maintenance.
Abrahams v City of Cape Town (25026/2011) [2025] ZAWCHC 173 (22 April 2025)