- Plaintiff suffered a serious right-eye injury, prompting a dispute over whether it resulted from a truck accident or wind-blown debris.
- The court concludes that the injury was caused by low-hanging thorn branches as the truck drove under them, establishing driver negligence.
- RAF found liable, costs awarded to Plaintiff, quantum of damages to be determined at expedited trial.
Shereen Davine Booysen’s life changed on 28 December 2018 when her right eye was struck during a routine ride home in the back of an uncovered truck.
What began as minor discomfort quickly escalated into a serious injury that required two operations and a month-long hospital stay. The legal battle that followed in the Western Cape High Court focused not on whether she was injured, but on how the injury occurred.
The Road Accident Fund argued the injury might have been caused by wind-blown debris after Booysen left the truck, while she insisted it happened while she was a passenger, struck by low-hanging thorn branches.
Booysen told the court, “The branches hit my right eye as the truck drove beneath them. I washed it with water when I got home, but I could not see properly the next morning.” Her testimony, supported by photographs and investigator reports, set the stage for a trial hinging on the credibility of her account versus the explanations offered by the RAF and the truck driver, Ricardo Baartman.
Acting Judge F Moosa would later describe her testimony as “clear, candid, and credible,” forming the basis for holding the RAF liable for the injuries she sustained.
Dispute over the cause of the injury
Booysen testified that she was seated on the left side at the back of the truck, which had no covering, when Baartman drove along Rainbows End Street in Smartie Town. Overhanging thorn branches protruded into the truck’s path, striking her right eye. She recalled, “I felt something in my eye immediately. I only realised the seriousness of the injury the next morning when my vision was blurred.”
The RAF contended that the injury could have occurred later, potentially caused by wind-blown debris while she was walking home. Counsel for the RAF questioned why Booysen did not alert the driver or other passengers if she had been struck: “The probabilities do not favour a finding that the Plaintiff’s eye was injured at Smartie Town,” they argued, citing her silence during the journey.
Baartman initially claimed he had not driven near the branches. Under cross-examination, however, he admitted: “I stopped on the pavement directly under the thorn branches that overhang Rainbows End Street.” Judge Moosa observed that Baartman “attempted to mislead the court” but ultimately conceded, which lent further credibility to Booysen’s account.
Baartman also acknowledged that the low-hanging branches posed a known hazard, especially given the truck’s uncovered back area.
Court analysis and ruling
The court examined whether the injury occurred in the truck and if it resulted from Ricardo’s negligent driving. Judge Moosa found Booysen’s evidence reliable: “Her honesty shone through. She did not embellish her testimony or present misleading evidence.” The judge rejected the wind-blown debris theory, describing it as “unsupported hearsay.”
Regarding negligence, the judge emphasised that Baartman was aware of the low-hanging branches and the exposed cargo bed. “A reasonable person would, in the circumstances, have taken reasonable precautions to avert injury to passengers seated in the uncovered back area of the truck,” Judge Moosa stated. The court concluded there was a “sufficiently close nexus between Baartman’s negligent driving on the one hand, and the bodily injury suffered by the Plaintiff on the other.”
As a result, the RAF was held liable under Section 17(1) of the RAF Act. Costs were awarded to Booysen, while the quantum of damages will be determined in an expedited trial.
Judge Moosa emphasised the importance of the timing and manifestation of injuries, noting that even a delay in recognising harm does not undermine a claimant’s credibility: “The more natural or plausible conclusion is that the Plaintiff’s injury was sustained while she was a passenger in the insured truck driven by Ricardo.”
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
