- The RAF argued that the plaintiff did not take evasive action despite clear road conditions.
- The plaintiff testified that the accident was sudden and unavoidable.
- The court ruled that the defendant was fully responsible and did not share any blame.
Could Delisile Prudence Kubayi have done something to avoid the accident that changed her life on 21 November 2021? This was the main question before the Mpumalanga High Court in Mbombela.
The central issue was whether the driver had any responsibility for the collision or whether the reckless actions of another driver were the sole cause.
The Road Accident Fund insisted that Kubayi could and should have taken evasive steps. It argued that visibility was good that evening, the road was clear, and a reasonable driver should have seen the danger earlier. According to this view, she did not meet the expected standard of care on the road, so damages should be shared.
Kubayi’s account was quite different. While driving with her two children along Mahushu Road at about 55km per hour, she suddenly faced a speeding vehicle overtaking illegally in the left-hand emergency lane.
Without any warning, the vehicle swerved back onto the road, collided with the front of her car, and forced her into a ditch. She noted that the events happened so quickly that she had no time to react. With 20 years of driving experience and no prior accidents, she argued that she could not have reasonably avoided the collision.
A search for understanding
In support of its argument, the RAF did not present any witnesses or direct evidence. Its case relied solely on questioning the credibility of Kubayi’s testimony. Her counsel argued that this left the court without a sound basis for dividing damages. They emphasized that contributory negligence requires more than speculation; it needs proof that a driver did not meet the reasonable standard expected in that situation.
The court accepted Kubayi’s account and dismissed the RAF’s defense. The court found that she had not been negligent and that no evidence supported the claim that she could have avoided the accident. "The defendant has proved no fault on the part of the plaintiff," the judge concluded. The RAF was deemed 100% liable for her damages and was ordered to cover her legal costs.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
