Chauke v Santam Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1997 (1) SA 178 (A)

Chauke v Santam Ltd
1997 (1) SA 178 (A)

1997 (1) SA p178

Citation	1997 (1) SA 178 (A)
Case No	710/1994
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Olivier JA, E M Grosskopf JA, Kumleben JA, Nienaber JA, and Zulman JA
Heard	September 12, 1996
Judgment	September 27, 1996
Counsel	I Smith for the appellant; N van der Walt for the respondent

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Motor vehicle accidents — Compensation — Claim for in terms of Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of B 1986 — Collision with a forklift — Forklift not objectively 'designed . . . for propulsion . . . on a road' — Forklift not a 'motor vehicle' as defined in s 1 of Act — Claim dismissed.

C Motor vehicle accidents — Compensation — Claim for in terms of Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986 — Definition of 'motor vehicle' in s 1 of Act — Whether vehicle in question 'designed . . . for propulsion . . . on a road' — Phrase to be taken as whole and given objective, common sense meaning — 'Designed' connoting ordinary, D everyday, and general purpose for which vehicle in question conceived and constructed — If use of vehicle on road used by pedestrians and other vehicles objectively speaking extraordinarily difficult and hazardous, vehicle not 'motor vehicle' for purposes of Act.

Headnote : Kopnota

E The appellant came to grief when, on 11 June 1988, he was injured by a forklift while walking about the yard of the transportation company where he was employed. Believing his injury to have been caused by the negligence of the driver of the forklift, he instituted action in a magistrate's court against the respondent, the appointed agent in terms of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986. His claim was met by a special plea in which the respondent denied liability on the ground that the forklift was not a 'motor vehicle' as envisaged by the F Act. Section 1 of the Act defined a motor vehicle as 'any vehicle designed or adapted for propulsion or haulage on a road . . .'. The magistrate upheld the special plea. A Local Division dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal. Pursuant to leave granted by that Court, the appellant appealed to the Appellate Division. The Court,

Held, that, upon examination of the definition of 'motor vehicle' in the 1986 Act and its predecessors (the Motor G Vehicle Insurance Act 29 of 1942 and the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act 56 of 1972), it appeared that the phrase 'designed . . . for propulsion on a road' was the dominant or decisive test; that preference was given to 'designed' over 'intended' or 'designed or intended'; and that 'road' was undefined and therefore had to bear its ordinary meaning. (At 181D-E/F.)

H Held, further, that since the forklift in question had not been adapted in any way, the question was whether it was 'designed for propulsion on a road'. The correct approach to the interpretation of this phrase was to apply to it an objective, common sense meaning. Just because it was possible to use a vehicle on a road did not imply that it was 'designed for propulsion on a road'. The word 'designed' conveyed the notion of the ordinary, everyday I and general purpose for which the vehicle in question was conceived and constructed and how the reasonable person would see its ordinary, and not some fanciful, use on the road; if the ordinary, reasonable person would perceive the general use of the vehicle on a road used by pedestrians and other vehicles as an extraordinarily difficult and hazardous task unless special precautions or adaptation were effected, the vehicle could not be regarded as a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the Act. (At 181E/F-F and 182I/J-183C.) I

1997 (1) SA p179

A Held, further, that the use of the forklift in question on an ordinary road would be regarded as an extraordinary and hazardous activity for which it was not designed: the driver's view was severely restricted by the hoist, it was capable of no more than 8 kph, and it was not fitted with lights or indicators. (At 183I-J.)

Held, further, that it was accordingly clear that the forklift could not be regarded as a 'motor vehicle' for the B purposes of the Act. (At 184B/C-C/D.) Appeal dismissed.

The decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division in Chauke v Santam Ltd 1995 (3) SA 71 (W) confirmed.

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases

The following cases were cited in the judgment of the Court:

C Burns v Currel [1963] 2 All ER 297 (QB)

Chauke v Santam Ltd 1995 (3) SA 71 (W)

Daley and Others v Hargreaves [1961] 1 All ER 552 (QB)

Mathie v Yorkshire Insurance Co Ltd 1954 (4) SA 731 (A)

Matsiba v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1996 (3) SA 85 (T); [1996] 1 All SA 614 (T)

Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Kemp 1971 (3) SA 305 (A)

Prinsloo v Santam Insurance Ltd [1996] 3 All SA 221 (E)

Woodward v James Young (Contractors) Ltd 1958 JC 28

Statutes Considered

Statutes

D The following statute was considered by the Court:

The Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 84 of 1986, s 1: see Juta's Statutes of South Africa 1995 vol 4 at 3-120.

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division, reported at 1995 (3) SA 71 (W) (Streicher J). The E facts appear from the judgment of Olivier JA.

I Smith for the appellant.

N van der Walt for the respondent.

In addition to the authorities cited in the judgment of the Court, counsel referred to the following authorities: F

Aetna Insurance Co v Minister of Justice 1960 (3) SA 273 (A)

Hladhla v President Insurance Co 1965 (1) SA 614 (A)

Ngubetole v Administrator, Cape 1975 (3) SA 1 (A)

Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van SA v Lemmer 1966 (2) SA 245 (A)

Santam Ltd v Williams 1992 (2) SA 273 (A)

Cur adv vult. G

Postea (September 27).

Judgment

Olivier JA:

The appellant, an employee of Messrs Unitrans in Johannesburg, seems to have been dogged by H misfortune at his place of employment. Some years ago, in the course of his duties, he was seriously injured when crushed by a crane. Then, on 11 June 1988, in the incident which has given rise to the present proceedings, he was injured by a forklift while walking about the Unitrans yard in the course of his employment. The yard is an open area occupied by warehouses and workshops where vehicles, machinery and people co-exist in seemingly I hazardous conditions.

Believing his injury to...