- The court finds PRASA failed to provide security on the train and platform, exposing the passenger to harm.
- The passenger sustained physical injuries and emotional trauma after being attacked by three unknown men.
- PRASA ordered to pay proven or agreed damages with costs, quantum to be determined later.
Jacob Colin Barnett, 72, was violently assaulted while travelling on a Metrorail train from Cape Town to Retreat Station on 26 May 2019.
Judge S Pather of the Western Cape High Court has now accepted Barnett’s evidence that three men who boarded at Hazeldene Station harassed him and his wife, leading to a scuffle in which he sustained a hand injury, and his wife’s handbag was stolen. As the train arrived at Crawford Station, a woman on the platform threw a brick through the open train doors, hitting Barnett on the nasal bone and causing extensive bleeding.
“This court accepts that the plaintiff was fearful of what might happen to him and his wife, given their ages and the fact that they faced three men, one of whom was armed with a knife,” Judge Pather said. Barnett testified that he could no longer travel safely by train, a form of transport he relied on for its affordability, and experienced significant anxiety and trauma as a result of the incident.
PRASA breached its duty of care to passengers
The court found that the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) failed to provide adequate security on the train or at Crawford Station. There were no guards, surveillance cameras, or emergency assistance. Judge Pather emphasised that Barnett’s expectation of safety was reasonable, noting, “The defendant should not have sold tickets that are more expensive if it could not provide the benefits that accompany such a ticket.”
Quoting precedent, Judge Pather highlighted that PRASA bears both a public and private law duty to protect commuters, referencing Mashongwa v PRASA [2016]: “It is this context of legal duty that falls on PRASA’s shoulders that must be understood. PRASA is under public law duty to protect its commuters… together with constitutional values, have mutated to a private law duty to prevent harm to commuters.”
The court also cited Railway Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail [2005], affirming that commuters are entitled to reasonable measures of protection. PRASA’s defence relied on a bare denial and did not call witnesses or provide evidence of security measures. Judge Pather observed, “The defendant called no witnesses, and this is indicative of the fact that there is no one to testify to the version that has been pleaded by the defendant.”
PRASA also criticised Barnett for seeking medical care before reporting the incident to the police, a point the court rejected. “There is no reason to doubt the plaintiff when he says that the SAPS refused to open a docket as the plaintiff could not identify the perpetrators.”
Court orders damages and costs
Judge Pather concluded that Barnett had proven his case and that PRASA’s negligence directly resulted in his injuries. “It was the defendant’s failure to safeguard the plaintiff whilst he was a passenger on the train that ultimately resulted in the injuries that he suffered,” the judgment reads. The court ordered PRASA to pay Barnett’s proven or agreed damages and legal costs, with the quantum to be determined later, granting preference for the matter’s enrolment.
Judge Pather emphasised: “The minimum expectation of the plaintiff and his wife was to be safe while going home.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
